Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Hartlepool Corporation Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

Mansfield Railway Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered; an Amendment made; Bill to be read the third time.

Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders Bill,

Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — SMYRNA (GREEK MASSACRE).

Lieut.-Colonel AUBREY HERBERT: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official information to the effect that the Greeks massacred their prisoners in Smyrna in full sight of the Allied warships; and, if not, will he consider the advisability of investigating the actual facts?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): I regret to say that, in view of official information that has reached us, there can be no doubt that a number of Turkish officers and men lost their lives in the circumstances indicated in the hon. and gallant Member's question. The matter is engaging the earnest attention of the British Delegation in Paris.
I have every reason to believe that the Greek Government deplore these excesses, and are taking all steps to prevent a recurrence.

Lieut.-Colonel A. HERBERT: Is it not the fact that the policy of the Allies in having sent the Greeks to Smyrna is a direct blow to the elements favourable to
us in Turkey, and a direct encouragement to our enemies, who are the Committee of Union and Progress?

Colonel BURN: Is it not the fact that part of our Navy was at Smyrna at that time, and could it not have done something towards preventing this occurrence?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: As I said, the whole matter is being investigated; I should not like to venture an opinion of what the Navy should do in this or that circumstance.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

EVACUATION OR ODESSA.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any information as to the arrests and summary executions which took place at Odessa by the anti-Soviet authorities, which led to the refusal of the French troops in Odessa to support these counter-revolutionaries, thus necessitating the evacuation of Odessa?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: His Majesty's Government have no official information supporting the allegations contained in the question.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these statements were made in the French Chamber in a debate last week, and have His Majesty's Government no report of what goes on in that Chamber?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Oh, yes, Sir; but I said the Government have no official information.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will official information be obtained?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I will endeavour to get it without delay.

BOLSHEVIST PRISONERS IN SIBERIA.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any information as to a train of Bolshevist prisoners in Siberia which is reported to have left Samara when the Czecho-Slovaks were forced to evacuate that town; whether some 800 prisoners died on the journey as the result of overcrowding and other appalling conditions; whether the women prisoners were kept for the use of the officers on the convoy; whether the
Foreign Office knew of these facts at the time; and whether it took any steps in. the matter?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: My attention has recently been drawn to articles appearing in the Press on this question, but the Foreign Office have received no information on the subject. Inquiries are, however, being made.

RE-ENLISTED MEN (ALLOWANCES).

Colonel ASHLEY: 12.
asked the Pensions Minister whether he is aware that the childless wives of soldiers who have re-enlisted after the expiration of their demobilisation leave for service with the relief force for Russia have been denied by local war pensions committees the special grant of 6s. 6d. per week, in spite of the fact that the War Office advertisements appealing for men state that they would receive pay, allowances, and bonus as now given to men in the Armies of Occupation; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

THE MINISTER OF PENSIONS (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): I must refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given by the Joint Patronage Secretary on behalf of the War Office to my hon. Friend the Member for South Salford on the 28th May, of which I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy.

Colonel ASHLEY: If I give the right hon. Gentleman the information upon which this question is based will he look into it?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Of course I will look into it; but it is really a matter for the War Office.

Mr. HOGGE: As the 6s. 6d. is really separation allowance can my right hon. Friend say why the Ministry of Pensions are not paying it to the childless wives of the men who have re-enlisted in Russia?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That question was answered by the Joint Financial Secretary, and I refer to that answer in ray answer to-day. It is a long story that of re-enlisted men, but they are not entitled to this supplementary separation allowance.

Mr. HOGGE: By what authority has the payment of this 6s. 6d. been stopped in the case of the childless wives of the men who re-enlisted in Russia?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The payment has not been stopped; the terms of re-enlistment do not provide for payment.

Sir E. CARSON: Is a re-enlisted man worse off than another man?

HON. MEMBERS: Yes!

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The men have re-enlisted under the terms of a certain Army Order to which reference is made in the answer of 28th May. A re-enlisted man receives what he is entitled to under that Army Order, that does not include the 6s. 6d.

Major J. EDWARDS: Is that an inducement for re-enlistment, Sir?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That does not arise out of the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — PASSPORTS.

Colonel YATE: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will have paragraph (h), form 9, of the passport regulations altered so that officers of the Navy and Army applying for passports may have their declaration verified by their commanding officers or other naval or military officer instead of having to apply to a minister of religion, a doctor, or solicitor for verification?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: There is no objection to the suggestion made by the hon. and gallant Member, and the next issue of application forms will be amended accordingly. In practice the verification of a commanding officer is frequently accepted.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If peace is signed may we expect the early abolition of these passports in connection—

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

Colonel GRETTON: 7.
asked the Under secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been directed to the refusal of the United States authorities in many instances to visé passports issued to eligible and respectable British subjects to travel to the United States of America; can he state the reasons for such refusal; and what steps have been taken to secure the usual freedom of entry into the United States for respectable and peaceable British subjects who travel under the British flag?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have been in communication with the United States authorities on the subject of the restrictions on the grant of the visa to British subjects for travelling to the United States? and I understand that some relaxation may now be expected. The restrictions, which are of a temporary nature, have been chiefly due to the serious shortage of shipping accommodation and to the importance of giving priority to cases of repatriation.

Oral Answers to Questions — APPEALS TRIBUNALS.

Brig.-General Sir OWEN THOMAS: 15.
asked the Pensions Minister whether he is aware that Welsh ex-sailors and ex-soldiers and their dependants appearing before the Appeals Tribunals in support of their appeals are greatly handicapped by being unable to express themselves in the English language and do justice to their own interests, while the fact that the Appeals Tribunal for the North Wales area, holding its sittings in Manchester with no Welsh-speaking member, enhances the difficulties of the applicants; and, in view of these circumstances, will he consider the desirability of selecting a convenient centre in North Wales for the hearing of appeals and appointing on such tribunal one or more Welsh-speaking members?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Under arrangements which are now being completed it is proposed that Wales shall be served by a travelling tribunal which will sit at centres convenient to the appellants. The tribunal will have attached to it a Welsh-speaking secretary, or registrar, who will, if necessary, act as interpreter A Welshman will also act as vice-president.

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. CAIRNS: 14.
asked the Pensions Minister if he is aware that Hugh Clarkson, of Hartford Colliery, Northumberland, is only getting 2s. per week for his old age pension; and, if so, whether he will inquire into the ease, seeing that the 2s. is alleged to be paid because he has a colliery house?

MR. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): I am making inquiries in this matter, and will communicate with the hon. Member in due course.

Mr. CAIRNS: 61.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware of the hardships existing among old people as the result of the method of calculating means under the existing Acts and the cost of living; and whether he intends to legislate to increase the pension to 20s. per week at sixty years of age at an early date?

Mr. SWAN: 64.
asked the Prime Minister if the is aware that boards of guardians have passed resolutions unanimously urging the Government to increase the old age pension to 1 per week and reduce the age to sixty years, and that similar resolutions have also been passed by the large trade unions in the country; and whether the Government will amend the Old Age Pension Act so as to permit the same to be achieved?

Mr. BALDWIN: Pending the Report of the Committee which is at present considering what alterations, if any, as regards rates of pension or qualifications should be made in the existing statutory scheme of old age pensions, it is not the intention of the Government to introduce legislation on the subject.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Are we to understand that these are the only pensions which the Government are continually revising?

Mr. BALDWIN: I. do not think that arises out of this. At any rate, I have not any knowledge on the point.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISABLED SOLDIERS (TRAVELLING FACILITIES).

Mr. ATKEY: 10.
asked the Pensions Minister whether he is aware that under certain of the Government schemes for the disabled a single man is penalised in the matter of travelling to and from his training centre to his home for holidays to the extent of having to pay the 50 percent. increase in railway fare, whereas a married man is given a free warrant; and, in view of the fact that single men do not cause the State any expenditure in the way of allowances for wives and children, he will consider the possibility of granting them the same privileges regarding travel as the married men enjoy or, failing that, to issue to them an Army railway warrant entitling them to a ticket at the same rate as is given the soldier, that is half rate for the return journey less the 50 percent.?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Wardle): I have been asked to reply to this question. The question of railway facilities for disabled men undergoing training away from home is now under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

FOREIGN LAWS AND DECREES.

Captain BOWYER: 8.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Oversea Trade Department whether his Department arranges to obtain copies of all laws and decrees affecting commercial matters which are adopted by foreign and Colonial Legislatures and Governments, and if translations of such laws and decrees are available for the use of British manufacturers and trade organisations?

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND (Department of Oversea Trade): The overseas officers of the Department are instructed to report all legislation enacted in their areas so far as it affects British commercial interests. In the case of documents in foreign languages, translations are made available for British manufacturers and trade associations. In the few cases where the length of the document makes it impossible to provide the full translation, the Department is always ready to supply information as to any specific matters.

COMMERCIAL AND DIPLOMATIC INFORMATION.

Captain BOWYER: 9.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Oversea Trade Department whether he is aware of the successful methods adopted by the Germans before the War of establishing clubs in every centre of the world where a German community existed; that every piece of information, commercial or diplomatic, which could be of value to Germany was brought to the notice of the German authorities through these clubs; and whether he will consider the advisability of taking steps without delay to promote a movement of this kind in the interests of British trade abroad, or to improve the present organisation of British chambers of commerce in foreign countries by the setting up of a central intelligence office in London?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; it is probable that valuable
assistance was afforded to the German Government by commercial and other information supplied to them by clubs of German residents in foreign towns. Inquiries have been and are being made of His Majesty's Diplomatic Representatives in various countries abroad as to the possibility of encouraging similar institutions among the British colonies in foreign countries, and a Committee has been set up for the purpose of expressly examining this and certain other kindred questions. The hon. and gallant Member is doubtless also aware of the existence of the. Overseas Club, which is a most valuable unofficial institution serving as a connecting link for bodies of this kind abroad.

Sir R. COOPER: Is it the policy of the Oversea Trade Department adequately to support chambers of commerce abroad, as asked in the question?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Certainly; and the whole question of the better utilisation of all forms of organisation of British citizens abroad is one of the subjects specially referred to the Committee.

LONG TERM CREDITS.

Mr. GIDEON MURRAY: 67.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government has any information as to any steps, Governmental or otherwise, that are being taken in the United States by means of granting long term credits to facilitate purchases in that country by Europeans of raw materials or manufactured goods; if so, whether he will state what these steps are; and, if not, whether he will cause inquiries to be made and inform the House what steps are being taken in. that country?

Mr. BALDWIN: The powers of the War Finance Corporation in the United States have been extended by statute to enable it to promote commerce with foreign nations through the extension of credits. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the relevant portion of the statute in question.

Mr. MURRAY: Will the hon. Gentleman not publish that for the information of the House?

Mr. BALDWIN: I will consider that.

Mr. G. MURRAY: 68.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government has the intention of setting up in this country any organisation whereby
European countries which are not in the position to pay at present by means of exports for requisite imports, and which cannot become exporters until they obtain certain necessaries, such as seeds, farming implements, rubber, pit-head gear, machinery, cotton, jute, and belting, will be granted credit facilities for the period necessary to enable exportable articles to be produced in repayment for the facilities given; and whether he will outline any steps it is proposed to take to meet this situation?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. The question of financing trade with such countries is receiving consideration, but I am not able to make a statement at present.

Mr. MURRAY: Does the Government realise the urgency of this question?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Yes, Sir.

Captain W. BENN: What is the cause of the delay in the statement of the Government policy?

An HON. MEMBER: Does it ever come to a decision on anything?

Mr. MURRAY: May I put down a question on this subject next week?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Questions as to business should be addressed to the Leader of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD (CLERKS' PENSIONS).

Sir EDWARD CARSON: 17.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether any scheme providing for a grant of pensions or gratuities to clerks employed by the Congested Districts Board, as directed under Section 52 (2) of the Irish Land Act of 1909, has been put in force; what is the position at present of such clerks in relation to pensions or gratuities; whether the said Section of the Act of Parliament has been allowed to remain in abeyance for ten years; and who is responsible for this default?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. A. W. Samuels): Correspondence has proceeded for some time past in this matter between the Congested Districts Board, the Irish Government, and the
Treasury. The Treasury have stipulated that full provision must be made in a pension scheme for the Board's staff under the Section of the Act referred to for meeting out of the Board's annual income during their continuance prospective pension charges which would accrue under the scheme. The Congested Districts Board, on the other hand, are seeking Treasury agreement to a scheme which would not throw the whole pension burden on their annual income. The Congested Districts Board are anxious for a speedy settlement and it is hoped that the question will be brought to issue very shortly.

Sir E. CARSON: Is it not a fact that, by reason of disputes between the Treasury and the Congested Districts Board, ten years have elapsed without setting up this compensation authority?

Mr. SAMUELS: I am not in a position to state that that has been the reason, but I hope that very soon it will be settled.

Sir E. CARSON: Meanwhile, are no pensions being given, although the Act of Parliament ten years ago provided that they were to be given?

EDUCATION BILL.

Sir E. CARSON: 18.
asked when the promised Bill dealing with Irish education will be introduced?

Mr. SAMUELS: The preparation of the Bill is being advanced as quickly as possible, and it will be introduced shortly.

ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY (THURLES MURDER).

Major NEWMAN: 19.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has any information to give the House relative to the reported murder in cold blood of a district-inspector of the Royal Irish Constabulary at Thurles, county Tipperary, on his return from a local race meeting?

Mr. SAMUELS: Hon. Members arc already aware through the Press of the wilful murder of District - Inspector Michael Hunt, of Thurles, who died within a few minutes of receiving two revolver bullet wounds in the back whilst returning through the streets of the town from Thurles races about 5.30 p.m. on 23rd instant. The murderer has not been identified, but every effort is being made to trace and bring him to justice.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman also cause to be conveyed to
the House of Commons full particulars of the twenty-seven murders which have taken place in Great Britain during the last month?

HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh !

Mr. SAMUELS: No, Sir. That is a very different matter.

Mr. MacVEAGH: It is only Irish cases that matter.

Major NEWMAN: Are the Irish Government doing all they can to help this sorely tried body?

Mr. SAMUELS: Yes, and they will continue to do so.

Sir E. CARSON: Is it not a fact that when the murder was committed the people standing about jeered at the man when he was dying?

Mr. SAMUELS: I have seen such a statement in the newspapers, and I believe it was stated in the evidence at the inquest.

LAND PURCHASE.

The following question appeared on the Order Paper in the name of Major O'NEILL:

20. To ask the Chief Secretary for Ire land if he can now make an announcement as to the policy of the Irish Government with regard to the matter of the completion of land purchase in Ireland?

Major O'NEILL: When will the right hon. Gentleman be able to make a statement on this immensely important subject?

Mr. SAMUELS: I cannot say, but I shall communicate as soon as I can with my hon. and gallant Friend.

Major O'NEILL: When shall I be likely to get an answer? Shall I put down my question again next week?

ARREST OF GIRLS (KILLARNEY).

Lieut.-Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 21.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland how many girls were arrested in Killarney on a recent occasion for selling flags, and how many soldiers and policemen were employed in this operation?

Mr. MacVEAGH: 23.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that four young ladies have been arrested in Killarney on a charge of selling flags on
labour day; whether, after the magistrates had dismissed the cases on the ground that the Defence of the Realm Act was never intended to operate in such a case, the young ladies were re-arrested, and on the same charge were sent to prison in default of giving bail to be of good behaviour; whether there is any precedent in England or Scotland for such proceedings; and whether the young ladies are still in prison?

Mr. SAMUELS: Five females were summoned to ordinary Petty Sessions at Killarney on the 20th May last on a charge of selling flags without a permit. The magistrates by a majority dismissed the charges without prejudice. The prosecution was not brought under the Defence of the Realm Act, but under the Act 6 and 7 George V., Chapter 31, Section 5. As there was a clear breach of the law directions were given that the defendants should be brought before a resident magistrate. This was done on the 3rd June, and an application was then made to bind them to the peace. As the defendants refused to give bail they were committed to custody for fourteen days. They were released on the 14th instant.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is there not a danger that this policy of petty persecution will drive the Irish people beyond all endurance?

Mr. MacVEAGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question as to whether there is any precedent in England or Scotland for such a proceeding?

Mr. SAMUELS: I have not looked up precedents, but I should think there is no doubt whatsoever that where a case has been dismissed without prejudice other proceedings may be taken.

Mr. MacVEAGH: As I gave notice of this question, and as the right hon. Gentleman is a lawyer, can he not answer the question as to whether there is any precedent for putting people on trial for the second time on the same charge as that upon which they were acquitted the first time?

Mr. SAMUELS: These people were not acquitted, but the case was dismissed without prejudice. I do not think it is necessary to search for precedents.

Mr. MacVEAGH: There is none, and you could not find one.

GAELIC LEAGUE FESTIVAL (KILLARNEY).

Mr. MacVEAGH: 22.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether a Gaelic League festival for the promotion of the Irish language has been suppressed in Killarney; whether similar festivals were held in previous years without any disorderly incident; and whether the prohibition of the Irish language is a settled part of the policy of the Irish Government?

Mr. SAMUELS: A Gaelic League open-air meeting which was to have been held at Killarney on 8th June was prohibited. The reason for adopting this course was that the Government had good grounds for believing that speeches of a seditious nature were to be delivered. Meetings solely for the promotion of the Irish language are not interfered with.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Is the Attorney-General aware that when the Chief Secretary was appointed he gave out a paragraph to the newspapers announcing his love for the Irish language, and is this his method of showing his love for it?

Mr. SAMUELS: He does not love sedition in the Irish language.

Mr. MacVEAGH: How does he know what speeches are going to be delivered? Has he started as a thought-reader?

Oral Answers to Questions — FEMALE ENEMY ALIENS.

Major COHEN: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether female enemy aliens who have married neutrals since the Armistice are allowed to take up their residence in this country; and whether, if this is so, he proposes to make any alteration in the existing regulations?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): All aliens wishing to take up residence in this country are and will continue to be subject to strict scrutiny at the port of entry. I do not think that any special measures are necessary to deal with the case suggested in the question of the hon. and gallant Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — LICENSED VEHICLES.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: 27.
asked whether it is proposed to permit the re-
introduction of the means for summoning licensed vehicles through the medium of any form of mouth organ?

Mr. SHORTT: The answer is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL REGISTRATION (COLOURED LABOURERS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 28.
asked the Home Secretary if he can state the number of coloured labourers there were in the United Kingdom at the time of the national registration and the approximate number at present in the United Kingdom; and how many of them are British subjects?

Mr. SHORTT: The statistics obtained under the National Registration Scheme do not distinguish between white and coloured labourers, and I regret, therefore, that the figures asked for by the hon. Member are not available. Statistics are, however, now being collected at the principal centres where there is a large coloured population.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the House be informed what are the numbers?

Mr. SHORTT: As soon as we know.

Oral Answers to Questions — JUVENILE CRIME.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 29.
asked the Home Secretary whether he will state the number of juvenile adults who were sent to prison during the year 1918; and how many of those were committed for a period of over one month or under?

Mr. SHORTT: The number of prisoners between sixteen and twenty-one years of age received into prison on conviction during the year ended 31st March, 1919, was 3,537 males and 1,429 females. One thousand, three hundred and nine of the males were committed for a period of one month or under. This information is not at present available in the case of the females.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Have not the Prison Commissioners often condemned the mischievous character of this system of short sentences and will he introduce legislation or take some steps to put an end to them?

Mr. SHORTT: That is their view and they try to enforce it as far as they can.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 30.
asked the Home Secretary whether he will state the number of boys and girls who, having been committed to reformatory and industrial schools, were charged during 1918 with fresh offences, either on absconding from the schools or when placed out on licence?

Mr. SHORTT: Complete figures are not available, but the police reports of cases of boys and girls charged with offences who are known to be on licence from a reformatory or industrial school show that during 1918 the number was 104 boys and twelve girls.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 31.
asked the Home Secretary whether he will state the number of children and young persons who were brought before the juvenile Courts during 1918; and the number of boys and girls, respectively, between the ages of fourteen and sixteen who were sent to prison, either under sentence, or on remand, or to await removal to other institutions, during this period?

Mr. SHORTT: The number of children brought before juvenile Courts during 1918 was 30,211, and of young persons, i.e., between fourteen and sixteen, 19,685. These figures are provisional and may need some correction. For the twelve months ended 31st March, 1919, the number of persons between fourteen and fifteen received into prison either under sentence or on remand or to await removal to other institutions was sixty-one boys and nine girls.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRENCH SUBJECTS (RESTRICTIONS).

Mr. MALLALIEU: 32.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to certain statements which have recently appeared in the French Press severely criticising the restrictions which it is alleged to be the intention of His Majesty's Government to impose on French subjects in the United Kingdom under the Aliens Restriction Bill; and whether he has any statement to make on the subject?

Mr. SHORTT: I am glad to have an opportunity of correcting any misapprehension which may have arisen as to the restrictions to be imposed on French citizens in the United Kingdom. The powers of the Aliens Bill and the Order which it is proposed to make under it, necessarily
apply to all aliens, but the obligations to be imposed on French citizens, both as to their admission to the United Kingdom and their registration, will be found to be of a most moderate character and embody a great relaxation of the restrictions which it has been found necessary to impose in war time. There is no ground for the suggestion that they will be treated, in the administration of the Order, in the same way as our former enemies. I understand that since the terms of the proposed Order have been published articles more recent than those referred to in the question have appeared in the French Press and give the French public a fuller and better account of what is proposed.

Sir P. MAGNUS: When will the Order referred to be placed on the Table?

Mr. SHORTT: It has already been published to the Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALEXANDRA PALACE.

The following questions stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON:

33 and 34. To ask the First Commissioner of Works (1) whether the main hall of the Alexandra Palace is to be converted into offices for Government officials; (2) what the cost will be for the conversion of the Alexandra Palace for the use of Government officials?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to postpone these questions until the First Commissioner can be here to answer them.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

BREAD.

Mr. CLOUGH: 35.
asked the Food Controller whether, in view of the subsidy paid in connection with the supply of bread, he will resume the campaign of propaganda directed towards encouraging the economical use of this commodity?

The MINISTER of FOOD (Mr. Roberts): The weekly output of flour is under the constant survey of the Royal Commission on Wheat Supplies, and there is no evidence of uneconomical consumption. I do not propose, therefore, to take any official action of the kind suggested, though I desire to emphasise the advisability of continued economy in the use of breadstuffs.

Sir J. D. REES: 24.
asked the Home Secretary why the Order prohibiting the sale of bread under twelve hours old is being maintained to the public inconvenience; and why bakers in Nottingham who are endeavouring to serve the public and to comply with local demands are being prosecuted for infringing a War regulation which the Ministry of Food has no desire to enforce?

Major PRESCOTT: 39.
asked the Food Controller whether he is aware that magistrates are imposing merely nominal fines upon bakers for breaches of the Bread Order, and that several Courts of Summary Jurisdiction have expressed the opinion that the time has arrived to repeal the provision prohibiting the sale of bread that has not been made for at least twelve hours; whether, whilst some bakers are strictly adhering to the provisions of this Order, others are generally flouting it; and if he will consider the desirability of repealing it at an early date, in view of the public feeling against it?

Mr. ROBERTS: I have been asked to reply, and will answer the two questions together. I am fully aware of the circumstances referred to by the hon. Member for Tottenham. At the request of the War Cabinet, the Minister of Labour recently appointed a Committee to inquire into night work in the baking industry, and decided that, pending the Report of this Committee, the twelve-hours Clause of the Bread Order should be maintained. So long as the Order remains in force it should not be contravened by any member of the trade to the disadvantage of his competitors.

COST OF LIVING.

Mr. CLOUGH: 36.
asked the Food Controller the present estimated percentage of increase in the cost of living as compared with last November, and also with June, 1914, basing it on the same commodities as in previous Returns issued by his Department?

Mr. ROBERTS: The records compiled by the Ministry of Labour show that since 1st November there has been an actual fall in the level of food prices. On the basis of a constant schedule of articles, representing approximately the average consumption of a working-class family in 1914, the increase since July, 1914, was 104 percent. on 1st June, as compared with
an increase of 133 percent. on 1st November, 1918. Commodities other than food are not included in these calculations.

Major NEWMAN: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell me how I can ascertain the increase in the cost of boots, clothing, and such things?

Mr. ROBERTS: Obviously, that is not a question of food consumption, and therefore it is not competent for me to answer it.

MILK.

Lieut.-Colonel A. HERBERT: 38.
asked the Food Controller who is benefiting by the 2d. deducted from the price of every gallon of milk produced in the Southwestern counties?

Captain TERRELL: 40.
asked the Food Controller if he will make a statement as to the ultimate destination of the fund which is being formed from the 2d. per gallon extra paid to the producers of milk in the four Western counties?

Mr. ROBERTS: I will answer these questions together. In the case of milk produced in the four South-Western counties and sold by retail within the area, the benefit of cheaper supplies goes to the local consumer. Where the milk produced in these counties is exported to other districts the purchasers pay to the Ministry of Food the difference of 2d. per gallon between the price of such milk and that of milk produced in the rest of the country. The money collected in this way is paid into a fund which is to be utilised for the benefit of consumers throughout the country. The precise application of the fund is under consideration.

Lieut.-Colonel A. HERBERT: What is going to be the name of the fund that is going to help consumers all over the country?

Mr. ROBERTS: I have not yet been able to christen it.

Mr. G. LAMBERT: Is the right hon. Gentleman certain that he is getting all these twopences?

Mr. ROBERTS: I have grave doubts of being certain about anything in these matters, but I am as certain as it is possible to be.

Captain TERRELL: 59.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that
two officials of the Ministry of Food hold licences for the sale of Grade A milk, one of them being the Director of Milk Supplies himself; and whether, under the circumstances, he proposes to advise that the grant of these licences be withdrawn so long as the holders occupy an official capacity?

Mr. ROBERTS: I have been asked to reply. With regard to the first part of the question, only one official of the Ministry of Food, the Director of Milk Supplies, holds a licence for the sale of Grade A milk. This licence was issued in accordance with the general conditions laid down by the Local Government Board and after investigations which lay outside the control of the Director of Milk Supplies. The system of milk production employed by this gentleman is generally admitted to be of the highest value as showing what can be done by scientific methods, and I am satisfied that there are no grounds on which the licence should be withdrawn.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEMOBILISATION.

NAVAL MEN ON FOREIGN STATIONS.

Mr. CLOUGH: 43.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the Regulations governing the demobilisation of men on foreign stations; whether these men are given preference to those in home waters; and whether he is aware that the feeling is general among them that they are not even being demobilised at the same rate as those at home?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The Regulations governing the demobilisation of men, both at home and abroad, are contained in Admiralty Monthly Order 921, which is too long to quote, but of which I will send my hon. Friend a copy. Reliefs are allocated for men abroad in preference to men at home; but, as circumstances admit of the reduction of services at home more quickly than those abroad, demobilisation has proceeded more rapidly at home. Every effort is being made to relieve as early as possible all demobilisable men abroad and at home, and men-of-war are being used to convey reliefs to foreign stations. The Admiralty are aware of the feeling of men abroad on this matter, and have taken, and will continue to take, every possible step to remove legitimate causes of complaint.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (USE OF MOTOR CARS).

Sir J. BUTCHER: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether the provision of motor cars free of charge for the use of Ministers, officers, and officials of the Air Ministry has been, or will be, discontinued, as recommended by the recent Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure; and whether a similar reform will be introduced into the other Government Departments?

Mr. BALDWIN: The number of motor cars in use by the Air Ministry has been considerably reduced since the Select Committee on National Expenditure reported On the subject. The question of the use of motor cars by this and other Government Departments is being carefully considered by the War Cabinet, and I hope that a very early decision will be reached.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Will my right hon. Friend convey to them the fact that, in the opinion of many of us, the time has come when an end should be put to this serious waste of public money?

Mr. BALDWIN: I will do it with the greatest pleasure, because I entirely agree with the hon. and learned Member.

Mr. MacVEAGH: How many of these cars were used on Whit-Sunday and Monday, and what business houses were they calling upon on those two days?

Mr. BALDWIN: I happened to be out of London then, but I can assure the hon. Member that I have never travelled in one.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the plain clothes that most of the men are now wearing are supplied by the Ministry or by the officers?

Mr. BALDWIN: That question should be addressed to the Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT OFFICES (ALIEN EMPLOYES).

Sir J. BUTCHER: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether the number of persons employed in Government offices who are not children of natural-born subjects of this country or of an Allied country, and as to whom there is no definite national reason for such employment, has been found by Lord Justice Bankes' Committee
to be 849; whether he can state in how many of these cases, respectively, both parents were enemy subjects; one parent only was an enemy subject; one parent only was a neutral subject; both parents were neutral subjects; and the nationality was unknown; how many of these 849 persons have been removed from their employment; and to which of the above classes the persons so removed belong?

Mr. SHORTT: I have no information beyond that which is contained in the published Report. None of the persons referred to have been removed.

Sir J. BUTCHER: If it was desirable, in the opinion of the Committee, in February last, that 849 of these persons should be dismissed from the public service, why is it not desirable that they should be dismissed now?

Mr. SHORTT: It was not put in that way. There were 849 as to whom there was no special reason why they should be retained.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Was not the inquiry into the very question whether there were any persons who ought to be retained, and whether those in respect of whom there was no reason should be dismissed?

Mr. SHORTT: The Committee did not advise whether they should be dismissed or not.

Sir R. COOPER: Could the right hon. Gentleman say how it is that 220 of these people with. both parents enemy subjects have been employed during five years of war without the Government discovering the fact?

Mr. SHORTT: I cannot answer that question.

Sir E. CARSON: Are there not 849 officers out of employment who might be given some of these positions?

Mr. SHORTT: That matter is now under the consideration of the Committee which is dealing with it.

Oral Answers to Questions — OIL SUPPLY.

Mr. GEORGE THORNE: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the discovery of oil in the Midlands, he will state to the House what steps, if any, the Government has taken or proposes to take
in order to secure that this new source of national wealth shall be conserved for the nation?

The DEPUTY-MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): I have been asked to reply to this question. I would direct my hon. Friend's attention to the announcement made to the House on Tuesday night, that a Committee has been appointed to advise the Minister on this subject. As soon as their Report is received, His Majesty's Government will take such action as the circumstances require.

Mr. G. TERRELL: Could the hon. Gentleman state the names of the members of this Committee?

Mr. KELLAWAY: No, Sir, but as soon as the Committee has been set up I will give the names.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE CELEBRATIONS.

Mr. CAIRNS: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in the event of the German representatives signing the Peace Treaty, it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to fix a special day on which the nation is to join in general Peace celebrations; and, if so, if any idea can be given of the date of such day?

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: asked the Prime Minister whether the Government have provisionally fixed the 3rd, 4th, and 5th August as the date for the Peace celebrations; and, if not, will he take into consideration the advisability of fixing a date when the elementary schools will be in session, as the assistance of the teachers is invaluable in arranging local celebrations, and this aid would not be generally available if the date fell during the school holidays?

Mr. SHORTT: I propose to answer these questions together. I would refer my hon. Friend to extracts from replies given to questions on the same subject by myself on the 7th May last and by the Leader of the House, respectively, on the 12th of the same month, which were as follow:

(a) The whole question of Peace celebrations, including the decoration of streets and buildings, is being considered by a War Cabinet Committee; and
(b) It is proposed shortly to make a statement to both Houses upon the intention of the Government with
325
reference to the Proclamation of a public holiday to be observed in connection with the coming Peace celebrations, and upon the proposals of the Government on the whole question of Peace celebrations.
I would only add that the promised statement to both Houses will be made at the earliest possible opportunity after the Peace Treaty has been signed by the Germans.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he appreciates the fact that Question No. 50 assumes that the jubilations to celebrate Peace are to be compulsory, and whether it may be optional for those who do not think it worth celebrating to abstain from doing so?

Mr. SHORTT: Everybody is at liberty to please himself.

Oral Answers to Questions — CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).

Major NEWMAN: 52.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the feeling created in the country by the action of the Government in allowing the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic), a body without a representative in the Government or in this House, to arbitrarily interfere with the liberties of the subject and to spend public money without any Parliamentary control; and if he is prepared to give a day to discuss the actions and policy of the Board?

Captain TERRELL: 60.
asked if the Prime Minister will state his intentions with regard to the future existence of the Central Control Board; what is its actual coat; and what is the number of people it employs?

Captain DOUGLAS HALL: 53.
asked to whom is the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) responsible?

Mr. SHORTT: The Government is aware that the Central Control Board has been criticised in certain quarters. As regards the cost of the Board and the number of persons employed I would refer to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions to a question 'by the hon. Member for Central Southwark on the 7th of May last. The Government has the whole subject of the future regulation
of the Liquor Trade under consideration, and expect to announce its intentions in this regard to the House in the course of next week. It would probably be convenient to the House that discussion of the subject should be postponed until it is in possession of the Government proposals.

Colonel ASHLEY: As we are to be told next week the decision of the Government, may we be told also who are the Gentlemen appointed by the Government to advise them. These names have so far been refused to the House of Commons. We ask for the names of the people on whose advice the Government are coming to their decision?

Mr. SHORTT: That shall be considered.

Captain HALL: Does that answer my question as to who nominated the members of the Board?

Mr. SHORTT: No, Sir.

Captain HALL: What Member of the Cabinet will answer that question?

Mr. SHORTT: The Minister of Munitions.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Board was established as a branch of the Ministry of Munitions, and that the Leader of the House said that Ministry was responsible for it?

Mr. SHORTT: They will answer for it.

Major NEWMAN: Can we have an allotted day for the Debate?

Mr. SHORTT: I must ask for notice of that.

Captain HALL: 54.
asked who nominated the members of the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic), and who fills the vacancies which occur from time to time?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I have been asked to reply to this question. The members of the Central Control Board were nominated by the Minister of Munitions, who also fills any vacancies which may occur.

Colonel ASHLEY: May I ask for the names of those who are advising the Government?

Mr. KELLAWAY: That is quite a different question.

Captain HALL: Who is responsible for the acts of this Board to the House of Commons?

Mr. KELLAWAY: That question has been answered by the Leader of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLOURED LABOUR (REPATRIATION).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 55.
asked the Prime Minister what steps have been taken to repatriate coloured labourers at present in the country?

Mr. SHORTT: Transport accommodation has been provided from time to time by the Ministry of Shipping, and I am in communication with the Ministry and other Departments concerned with a view to the provision of further accommodation as soon as possible.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it optional for the coloured labourers to take advantage of this means of transport, or is it left to them? Are they requesting to go back to their own country?

Mr. SHORTT: Those who are British subjects cannot, of course, be compelled to go back, but every opportunity is being offered them to go.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE APPOINTMENTS (AGE REGULATIONS).

Lieut.-Colonel DALRYMPLE WHITE: 62.
asked the Prime Minister whether, as regards appointments to the new Ministries of Health and of Ways and Communications, consideration will be given to the applications of officers and men who have served throughout the War even though they may be slightly over the age hitherto laid own for admission to the Civil Service?

Mr. BALDWIN: The normal age-limits for candidates for Civil Service appointments fixed before the War have been extended so that candidates at the competitions now being held under the reconstruction scheme who have served in the forces may deduct from their age the full period of the War. This extension will apply to candidates for posts in all Departments alike, and I am not prepared to make any special provision for the new Ministries.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL COLONIAL CONFERENCE.

CANADIAN AND NEWFOUNDLAND STEAMSHIPS.

Mr. MacVEAGH: 65.
asked the Prima Minister whether any steps have yet been taken to give effect to the recommendation of the Imperial Colonial Conference of 1911 that a line of steamers between Great Britain and Canada should be established on the basis of an annual subsidy from the Governments of Great Britain, Canada, and Newfoundland; whether he is aware that two Royal Commissions, one in 1846 and the other in 1884, strongly urged the equipment of a port on the West Coast of Ireland; that such a scheme has been approved by the Governments of Canada and Newfoundland and awaits only the approval of the British Government; and whether, in view of the international importance of the subject, he will without further delay make definite proposals to the Government of Canada?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridge-man): I have been asked to answer this question. I think the hon. Member will find that the Resolution of the Imperial Conference of 1911 in regard to Imperial shipping services was to the effect simply that Great Britain should be connected with Canada and Newfoundland (and with Australia and New Zealand) by the best mail service available; it did not refer to subsidies for such a service nor to. Ireland. No action has been taken upon it.
I am aware that proposals have been made for the establishment of a Transatlantic Terminal Port in Ireland, but I am not aware; of any recent authoritative recommendation in favour of such a project being embarked upon by His Majesty's Government. I may add that the establishment of an Imperial Investigation Board in pursuance of the Resolution of the Imperial Conference of 1918 is being proceeded with, and any question of developing Imperial shipping communications would fall to be dealt with by that body.

Mr. MacVEAGH: What is the good of holding Imperial Conferences if you take no notice of the Resolutions passed?

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED STATES (AMBASSADOR'S SALAEY).

Colonel GRETTON: 66.
asked the Lord Privy Seal if the salary of the next ambassador to be appointed to Washington will be increased, or if any additional allowances for entertaining and other expanses will be made on the appointment of the next ambassador; and, if so, what will be the increased charge upon public funds in either case?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Pending an appointment to the post no decision has been arrived at on the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — VICTORY BONDS.

Colonel GRETTON: 69.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Victory Bonds, which are to be accepted by the Treasury at face value if tendered in payment for death and estate duties, will be valued for probate in the usual way, namely, at the market price on the day of the death of the testator?

Mr. BALDWIN: In calculating the value of the bonds as part of a deceased person's estate for purposes of probate they will be taken at their market price on the day of the death of the testator. In the case of any subsequent claims for Legacy Duty or Succession Duty which may arise in respect of the same bonds as forming part of the testator's estate, the bonds will be valued for the purposes of those duties at their market value at the time when such duties become payable.

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX.

Mr. HUGH EDWARDS: 70.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the increased cost of food and the consequent difficulty on the part of people with small incomes to meet the increased cost of living, he can see his way to re consider his decision in regard to making an annual income of £250 the minimum amount as assessable for the purposes of Income Tax?

Mr. BALDWIN: I cannot anticipate the discussion on this question which will take place on the Committee stage of the Finance Bill.

Mr. MARRIOTT: May I ask whether relief to persons in receipt of incomes just
under £250 would not throw an additional burden on persons receiving incomes just over £250?

Mr. BALDWIN: I think I follow tha[...]

Sir R. THOMAS: Has the hon. Gentleman received representations on this very important matter from a number of industrial organisations in the land?

Mr. BALDWIN: I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had representations made to him.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

PAY AND PENSIONS.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: 71.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that Captain Bather's Committee, which wag appointed under Admiralty Weekly Order No. 1,339 to consider the pay and conditions of officers' stewards and cooks, has not invited any suggestions from loyal lower deck committees representing these classes of ratings; and whether he will take steps for this to be done before their Lordships accept the Report from this Committee?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The Committee had before it the requests placed by representatives of this branch before the Jerram Committee, to which also Officers Chief Steward Penny was attached as advisory representative. As these requests were of quite recent dates and exceedingly comprehensive, it was not considered necessary to call upon representatives again. I might add, however, that the Committee visited Portsmouth Naval Barracks and interviewed the messman at great length as regards the position of the class. The Board have not yet considered the Committee's Report.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: Is it the deliberate intention of the Government to ignore this Report?

Dr. MACNAMARA: It is not. These men were interviewed at length.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: 76.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has yet had an opportunity to consider the letter addressed to him by the members of the Dockyard and Naval Parliamentary Committee asking that the new scale of pay may be antedated to 1st October, 1918; that the revised scale of pensions
may apply to all pensioners on the rolls; that in certain conditions widows' pensions and compassionate allowances be granted; and that the limitation placed by the Government upon the removal of discharged or invalided men be changed from one to three months; and whether he can say what course he proposes to take in the matter?

Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. Friend has doubtless received the reply to this letter. As stated therein, the Board have decided to revise the conditions applying to the free conveyance of men and their families to their future place of employment on being discharged to pension or invalided, so as to admit of such conveyance within a period of six months from the date of final discharge or invaliding, providing that the man's intention to avail himself of the privilege is notified within one month of his discharge or invaliding. Further, as I have informed my hon. Friend, the position of the older pensioners is under consideration. As regards the other matters, the Admiralty are not in a position to announce any change in the decisions arrived at by His Majesty's Government.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the compassionate allowance under consideration?

Dr. MACNAMARA: No. All the other points are covered by the last sentence—that is to say, I am not in a position to announce any change in the decisions arrived at by His Majesty's Government.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: 74.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty when the Government's decision with regard to pay and pensions of officers in the Royal Navy will be circulated?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The Admiralty recommendations are before the Cabinet, and my hon. Friend need not apprehend any delay in the announcement of their decision.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the date when he expects that decision?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I am afraid I cannot do that. The matter is not in my hands. But I hope it will be an early date

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Before we are asked to discuss the Naval Estimates?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Oh, certainly!

Mr. MacVEAGH: Certainly before the General Election.

Viscount CURZON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable anxiety on the part of naval officers that, owing to the delay in the decision of the Admiralty in regard to pay, they will not be able to take part in the Victory Loan?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes. I have had my attention, drawn to the fact that naval officers desire to invest in the Victory War Loan. That is a very powerful argument that there should be expedition.

NAVAL PRIZE MONEY.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: 73.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can now say when the naval prize money will be distributed; whether the expenses connected with the distribution will come out of the prize money funds; and, if so, what is the estimate of these expenses?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I explained to my hon. Friend on the 5th March last that no distribution can be made until the records of individual service, which will determine eligibility and the amount to be received, are complete; and until the Courts and the Tribunal have finished their labours. All concerned are making every effort to complete their work. As the cost of distribution will not be a charge against prize money, the third part of the question does not arise.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In view of the fact that many naval officers have been very hard hit financially, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the payment of something on account?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I have been questioned on that many times by hon. Members. It is very difficult indeed. The answer of the 5th March, to which I referred, concluded with these words,
I should now add that if that by that time—
that is, when all our work on the records of service is completed—
the Courts and the tribunal have not finished their labours, our records being then complete, it will be a question for the serious consideration of the Board whether in that case an ad interim, payment ought not then to be made

NAVAL RATINGS (ALLOTMENT AND ALLOWANCES).

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: 75.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in a
considerable number of cases, a long period is allowed to elapse before a naval man's wife receives her allotment and allowances after it is declared, and that it is sometimes months before payment is made, thus causing considerable inconvenience to the wife; and can he see his way so to amend matters that this long period of waiting may be eliminated?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I am afraid there are cases in which, as inquiries are necessary, some delay ensues. But I am advised that it would not be correct to say that there is a considerable number of cases in which there is a long period of delay. In the great majority of cases, I am glad to say, there is no delay in making payment of an allotment declared by a sailor in favour of his wife, and the period that elapses is usually only about a week.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider three or four months not a long delay?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Certainly.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is he not aware that that period has occurred on many occasions?

Dr. MACNAMARA: There were reasons for that. Inquiries were necessary, because we had not the precise facts. I hope it is very rare.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

AIR NAVIGATION.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: 84
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air (1) whether any sextant suitable for taking bearings in the air is in use or being experimented with; (2) what liaison exists between the Air Ministry and the Admiralty with a view to applying to air navigation the experience of the Navy; (3) what is the staff of the Air Navigation School; and whether it includes any qualified marine navigators; (4) what progress is being made in instruction in taking bearings in the air?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Major-General Seely): At the moment the whole system of instruction in aerial navigation is being revised, and the schools of aerial navigation re-organised; and in this process we shall certainly keep in close touch with all those whose experience of aerial or marine navigation is likely
to be of assistance, and endeavour to perfect as far as possible, all mechanical aids to navigation, such as sextants. Experiments with various types of sextant are already being carried out with this object.
At the present moment there is great hope of the early development of a satisfactory artificial horizon sextant and experiments are now being carried out at the Royal Air Force experimental establishments with a view to its early perfection. I would add that the officers who are dealing with this question will be very glad if my hon. and gallant Friend will give them the benefit of his advice and criticism.

Captain BENN: Is the Air Force taking full advantage of the navigating experience of the Admiralty? That is the point.

Major-General SEELY: Yes, Sir. I think we may say we are working in absolutely close co-operation with them, and many of the officers dealing with this matter have themselves sea experience.

Captain BENN: Are any of the instructors in the navigation schools naval officers?

Major-General SEELY: Speaking from recollection, many of them are or have been in the Navy. I should like to have a precise question on that point.

Captain BENN: The question is on the Paper.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are there any navigating officers among the instructors?

Major-General SEELY: I must have notice as to the precise number of navigating officers. My hon. and gallant Friend is aware that many of our Air Force officers guiding us in this matter are naval officers.

Captain BENN: Are they naval officers or members of the Royal Naval Air Service, which is different?

Major-General SEELY: Both.

AEROPLANES (CYPRESS WOOD).

Mr. REMER: 88.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the fact that the use of cypress on aeroplanes cost the nation over a quarter of a million sterling, he will appoint a small Committee of Inquiry to go into the whole circumstances?

Major-General SEELY: The matter has already been fully investigated. The decision to use cypress was taken by the Department on expert advice as a war measure to meet a pressing emergency. I see no reason for a special Committee of Inquiry.

Mr. REMER: 89.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether his attention has been called to a minute in his Department proving that one of his present advisers on timber was the official responsible for sanctioning the use of cypress; and what action he intends to take?

Major-General SEELY: I do not know to what document my hon. Friend refers in the first part of the question. But, in any case, I do not think any further action is required.

TIMBER TRANSPORT.

Mr. REMER: 90.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether large quantities of timber were dispatched by rail from Glasgow to London for no other purposes but to be stored; and whether, in view of the fact that traders are complaining of congestion on the railway he will take steps to see that no waste of trans port facilities is incurred?

Major-General SEELY: I am unable to trace the incident referred to; but if my hon. Friend will supply fuller particulars I will have further inquiries made.

FLYING BOATS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 91.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what is the cost for construction of the R 34 type of airship; what is the cost of its shed; what is the personnel required at the shed for handling the airship, etc.; what is the estimated total monthly cost of the airship when in commission, including pay of personnel; and what is the cost of the N 3 B type of flying boat seaplane, 1919, pattern?

Major-General SEELY: The first part of the question is for the Board of Admiralty, and perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will address the question to them. The cost of the latest flying boat built to N 3 B specification is £9,000 complete with engines; the specification is, however, not a new one.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What is the cost of the shed?

Major-General SEELY: Questions as to the shed of the airship should be addressed to the Admiralty. They ordered the ships, although the Air Ministry had control of them for experimental purposes. The actual details of the contract price should be asked of the Admiralty.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What is the personnel? Has the right hon. Gentleman information as to the number of persons necessary to handle this airship?

Major-General SEELY: I have suggested that on that point also the question should be addressed to the Admiralty. I included that in the first part of the answer. I think they will be able to give the information required.

Captain BENN: Are we to understand from that answer that the Air Ministry has not complete control over the lighter-than-air material?

Major-General SEELY: Yes, that is so. At present we have not complete control of lighter-than-air ships. With regard to personnel, we are responsible for that. The matter is complicated, but it will be adjusted in a very short time.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT HUTS.

Captain HALL: 82.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions if any considerable amount of Government huts have been notified to the Disposal Board for sale in the Isle of Wight; and, if not, why there is this delay?

Mr. KELLAWAY: No huts situate in the Isle of Wight have been notified to the Disposal Board for sale. I have no information on the second part of the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE.

Colonel ASHLEY: 92.
asked the Post-master-General whether he is aware that demobilised soldiers who have started in business are heavily handicapped by lack of telephone facilities; and whether, in order to save time, he will, in the interests of these men, grant permission for private electricians to fit, at subscribers' own cost, temporary extensions in blocks of offices where telephone communication already exists?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER -GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): Arrangements can be made by the Post Office to allow two or more subscribers to use the same telephone line by means of extensions or otherwise, so that the employment of private contractors to fit extension telephones is unnecessary. The real difficulty in providing service for new subscribers in certain localities is not, however, due to the want of such extensions, but of spare underground wires to exchanges and of spare switchboard positions in the exchanges, as the result of the enforced cessation of construction work during the War. A large amount of work is in hand to overcome both difficulties, and as many as 27,472 new exchange lines have been provided since the Armistice.

Colonel ASHLEY: May I take it that the suggestion contained in the question is not practicable unless someone in the building agrees to allow the new tenant to use his telephone?

Mr. PEASE: I think that is so.

Oral Answers to Questions — POSTAL FACILITIES.

Mr. STURROCK: 93.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he can now state the approximate date on which he anticipates the complete restoration of the prewar postal delivery service in the rural districts of Scotland; whether he is aware that the delay in resuming normal facilities is prejudicial to the renewal of prosperity over a wide tract of country; whether, in the case of Glenshee, no reduction of postal staff was made when deliveries were cut down to three per week; and why there is any further delay in improving the service in this and in other districts similarly situated?

Mr. PEASE: The restoration of facilities upon the pre-war scale in the rural districts of Scotland is, as my right hon. Friend stated in his reply to the hon. Member's question of the 3rd April last, being considered under general instructions applicable to the whole country. In many such cases restoration has already taken place, but in respect of each post the possibility and the date of restoration depend upon local circumstances and conditions. I will make inquiry into the ease of Glenshee, and will acquaint the hon. Member with the result.

Mr. GRATTAN DOYLE: 97.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware
of the inconvenience caused to the-business men and the general public in Newcastle-upon-Tyne by the inadequate posting and telegraph facilities at the General Post Office after eight o'clock p.m.; that letters can only be posted after that hour through an unsavoury alley-way 362 feet in length which is the resort of questionable characters; that telegrams can only be sent from the same alley-way in a basement which is reached by eighteen steep and slippery steps; and whether, seeing that the volume of business has increased through the closing of adjacent sub-offices, steps will be taken to remove the discontent caused by such an undesirable state of affairs?

Mr. PEASE: I am having enquiry made into this matter, and will communicate with my hon. Friend later.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE AND POSTAL TELEGRAPH SERVICE.

Mr. STEWART: 96.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he will state the amount of public money invested in the telephone service and the postal telegraph service; and whether, these Departments are annually debited with a certain percentage towards repairs and depreciation?

Mr. PEASE: The values at prime cost of the Post Office plant, excluding plant constructed for war purposes, as shown in the latest published Commercial Accounts in Paper No. 11 of this year, were as follows: Telephone Service £34,838,367, Telegraph Service £7,057,266. The accounts show that full allowance is made from revenue for accrued depreciation not covered by the actual expenditure on renewals and maintenance.

Mr. STEWART: As the maintenance of these nationalised services means a levy on poor people who do not use telegrams or telephones, with a view to relieving the country of the burden of finance, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of trying to dispose of these two non-paying monopolies?

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE (CARETAKER OPERATORS).

Mr. ROBERT RICHARDSON: 99.
asked the Postmaster-General whether a recent Treasury Circular granted a period of
leave to all temporary Post Office employés; whether he has refused this privilege to caretaker operators on the ground that they are neither permanent employés of the Post Office nor the temporary staff within the meaning of the Treasury; and whether he will give the reasons which led him to deprive this section of his staff of this relaxation?

Mr. PEASE: Under the Treasury Circular to which the hon. Member refers, additional leave during 1919 may be granted on certain conditions to those employés who are entitled under existing regulations to a period of ordinary leave with pay. Caretaker operators are not ordinarily granted annual leave at the expense of the Post Office, and the concession in question does not, therefore, apply to them.

Mr. RICHARDSON: 100.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the conditions of caretaker operators both as regards pay and length of attendance; whether he is aware that these operators have to give an attendance from 8 p.m. to 8 a.m. on week-days, with a continuous period of thirty-nine hours' duty from Saturday night to Monday morning; and whether he will state his reasons for refusing to admit the right of the Postal and Telegraph Clerks' Association to represent its caretaker-operator members?

Mr. PEASE: I am aware that caretaker operators, who are stationed at small telephone exchanges, are usually responsible for attention to telephone calls made during the periods named. Their conditions of service were reviewed by a Select Parliamentary Committee which reported in 1913, and are in accordance with the recommendations of that Committee. Recognition of the Postal and Telegraph Clerks' Association as representing caretaker operators was refused in 1917, as not more than thirty members of the class, which numbers about 1,000, were members of the association. A further request for recognition has recently been received and is under consideration.

Lieut.-Commander DAWES: Did the right hon. Gentleman say the Holt Committee recommended a continuous thirty-nine hours?

Mr. PEASE: No, I did not say that.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SHIPYARDS.

COTTAGES AT BEACHLEY.

Mr. HAYDN JONES: 101.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller whether twelve cottages, planned twenty-one to the acre, have been built at Beachley; whether the third bed room measures 6 ft. 7½ in. by 6 ft. 1½ in.; whether the only window in the larder opens directly on to the earth closet; who is the person who prepared the plans of the houses; and whether he has been appointed a Housing Commissioner at a salary of £1,000 per annum?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Colonel Leslie Wilson): Houses in Pennsylvania village, which I presume is the locality referred to, are from nine to ten to the acre. In no case is the smallest bedroom less than 65 ft. in superficial area. There are no earth closets on this estate. I understand that the architect employed in connection with the housing schemes at Chepstow and Beachley has received an appointment under the Local Government Board, but any question in regard to this should be addressed to that Department.

HOSPITAL, CHEPSTOW.

Mr. H. JONES: 102.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller whether the hospital built at Chepstow in connection with the national shipyards, at a cost of about £100,000, is now empty and derelict; whether such hospital was built by contract; if so, who was the contractor; when was the work commenced; and on what date was the contract signed?

Colonel WILSON: The hospital at Mount Pleasant, Chepstow, has been taken over by the Ministry of Pensions as from 31st May last, for the treatment of neurasthenic and other cases. The building was erected by contract by Messrs. Henry Boot and Sons, and was commenced in December, 1917. The contract was finally signed on 2nd August, 1918

PUBLIC EXPENDITURE.

Mr. H. JONES: 103.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller whether, in view of the growing dissatisfaction shown by the public at the expenditure of public money at the national shipyards at Portbury, Chepstow, and Beachley, the Government will institute an
inquiry into the alleged waste, such inquiry to be on lines similar to that of Cippenham?

Colonel WILSON: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Cardiff Central on 2nd April last, to which I have nothing to add.

UNSKILLED LABOURERS.

Mr. H. JONES: 104.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller what is the rate of wages per hoar paid by the Joint Road Board Committee to unskilled labourers in connection with the national shipyards at Portbury, Chepstow, and Beachley; whether such rate exceeds the rate paid to men engaged in agriculture; is he aware that in consequence men have left the farms and that it is now impossible for farmers to procure essential labour within a radius of eight miles of Chepstow; and what is the rate of wages per week paid to Government chauffeurs and to youths under nineteen years of age employed at the aforesaid shipyards?

Colonel WILSON: I understand that the rate paid by the Joint Road Board Committee is 1s. 3d. per hour for all unskilled labour. This will be increased to 1s. 4½d. per hour as from 1st June in accordance with the new award of the Conciliation Board. I have no information as to the local agricultural rate or as to the alleged depletion of agricultural labour in the district, but would suggest that my hon. Friend should address an inquiry to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries on this matter. The wages paid to chauffeurs (male) is £5 per week, including all overtime; chauffeurs (female), £2 10s. per week, including all overtime—plus 5s. per week clothing allowance. Youths under nineteen years of age receive 10d. per hour.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING (CHARTER RATES).

Sir WILLIAM RAEBURN: 105.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ship ping Controller whether his attention has been called to statements being made in Canada, with reference to the non-return of coal ships chartered by the Dominion Coal Company, to the effect that British shipowners, assisted by the Shipping Controller, wishing to keep their ships under post-war charter rates as long as possible, have sent Canadian coal by ship to Australia, and that British owners have been
assisted by the Shipping Controller in avoiding the completion of contracts in the Canadian coal service at the lower prewar charter rates; and, if so, whether he is prepared to make any statement on the subject?

Colonel WILSON: As the answer is a long one, I will have it circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the Answer referred to:

I am glad to have an opportunity of making a statement on this matter, which has evidently been the subject of serious misrepresentation in certain quarters. The vessels in question are with one exception owned in the United Kingdom, and prior to requisition for Government service they had been time-chartered by their owners to the Dominion Coal Company of Canada. These time-charters are private contracts, and the relations between the owners and the time-charters are matters with which the Shipping Controller is in no way concerned.

The statement that the ships were used for carrying Canadian coal to Australia is not understood: the facts are that during the course of last winter it became necessary, as part of the general Allied food programme to send several of these vessels (as well as a large number of other requisitioned British ships) to load wheat from Australia to Europe, a service for which their size made them particularly suitable. The owners wore not consulted as to this allocation, nor were they even informed of it until after the necessary orders had been issued to the ships by the Ministry of Shipping. The suggestion that the steps taken were due to any desire on the part of the Shipping Controller to assist the owners to avoid the completion of contracts is, therefore, entirely without foundation.

I. may add that of the five vessels in which the Dominion Coal Company are interested, three have already been released from requisition, and the owners of the remaining two have been offered release as soon as their present cargoes are discharged.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL ELECTIONS.

Mr. BOWERMAN: 108.
asked the President of the Local Government Board whether he will again consider the advisability of providing for a general in-
stead of a partial election of local authorities this year, in view of the fact that the election of all members would have a stimulating effect at this period of reconstruction?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Major Astor): The only elections of local authorities which remain to be held this year are those of Metropolitan Borough Councils and the Town Councils of Municipal Boroughs. The former all retire together. Legislation would be necessary to provide for the election of all Town Councillors this year, and my right hon. Friend is considering the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — LABOUR PARTY CONFERENCE.

DETENTION OF FRENCH DELEGATES.

Mr. SWAN: (by Private Notice) asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the statement in the Press to the effect that M. Jean Longuet and M. Frossard, the French delegates to the Conference of the Labour party at South-port, were informed on arrival at Folkestone that they could not be allowed to proceed to Southport; whether this statement is in accordance with the facts; and whether he can give the reasons for this refusal to MM. Jean Longuet and Frossard to attend the Labour Party Conference?

Mr. SHORTT: In consequence of allegations received from France as to the real object of their visit, all the French delegates to the Conference at Southport were stopped pending inquiries—two at Folkestone and four in London. They were all subsequently allowed to proceed to Southport, which four of them did, but the two gentlemen at Folkestone preferred to return to Paris.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: From what source did the allegations come?

Mr. SHORTT: I cannot possibly mention the source, but it was one which it was absolutely impossible for us to ignore.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that the same people have been to Labour party conferences for years past, and nothing whatever has arisen to do any harm?

Mr. SHORTT: No such allegations have been made about them before.

Mr. WATERSON: Are we to understand that these gentlemen are convicted before they are tried?

Mr. SHORTT: No. They were detained pending inquiries, and were then allowed to go on. There was no conviction.

Mr. SWAN: Does it harmonise with British liberty that these men should be stopped in this manner, and is it not likely to promote discord between us and other people?

Mr. SHORTT: If the hon. Member had been Home Secretary he would have done the same.

An HON. MEMBER: Is it not notorious that M. Longuet was a pro-German throughout the War?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Sir D. MACLEAN: May I ask what business the Government propose to take next week?

Mr. SHORTT: On Monday, Supply, Local Government Board Vote, and Report of Votes on the Paper.
On Tuesday and Wednesday, Report stage of the Ways and Communications Bill.
The work on Thursday will be announced later.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS,

That they have passed a bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for Women being appointed and serving as Justices of the Peace." [Justices of the Peace (Qualification of Women) Bill [Lords.]

Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer powers upon the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Middlesbrough with respect to tramways and omnibuses; to authorise them to construct street works; to incorporate the Teesside Railless Traction Board; and for other purposes." [Middlesbrough Corporation Bill [Lords.]

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Corporation of Stockton-on-Tees to work tramways; to purchase and provide and run omnibuses; to establish and work ferries across the River Tees; and for other purposes." [Stockton-on-Tees Corporation Bill [Lords.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Middlesbrough Corporation Bill [Lords],

Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Stockton-on-Tees Corporation Bill [Lords].

Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Private Bills.

DOGS' PROTECTION BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), and on Consideration, as amended, to be printed. [Bill 112.]

STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).

Mr. JOHN WILLIAM WILSON reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Mr. William Nicholson to act as Chairman of Standing Committee A (in respect of the Government War Obligations Bill).

That they had appointed Mr. Turton, in place of Mr. Macmaster, to act as Chairman of Standing Committee C (in respect of the Civil Service and Revenue Department Estimates, 1919–20).

That they had appointed Sir Watson Rutherford to act as Chairman of Standing Committee E (in respect of the Compensation for Subsidence Bill, the Trade Disputes (No. 2) Bill, and the Ferries (Acquisition by County Councils) Bill [Lords]).

That they had appointed Sir Archibald Williamson to act as Chairman of Stand-

That they had appointed Sir Archibald Restoration of Pre-War Practices (No. 3) Bill).

Reports to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added to Standing Committee A the following Ten Members (in respect of the Government War Obligations Bill): Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Bridgeman, Colonel Boles, Mr. Bird, Captain Foxcroft, Major Hayward, Mr. Lyle-Samuel, Sir William Pearce, Mr. Spencer, and Mr. Spoor,

Sir SAMUEL ROBEETS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A: Mr. Godfrey Loeker-Lampson; and had appointed in substitution (for the consideration of the Aliens Restriction Bill): Mr. Ronald McNeill.

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B: Mr. Chadwick; and had appointed in substitution (for the consideration of the Electricity (Supply) Bill): Mr. Norman Craig.

STANDING COMMITTEE D.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee D: Sir Francis Blake, Major Courthope, Sir Alfred Warren, and Major Edward Wood; and had appointed in substitution Mr. Bartley Denniss, Major Henderson, Major William Murray, and Mr. Strauss.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee D: Mr. Archdale; and had appointed in substitution (for the consideration of the Housing of the Working Classes (Ireland) Bill): Mr. Burn.

STANDING COMMITTEE E.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added to Standing Committee E the following Member: Mr. Leslie Scott.

Sir SAMUEL ROBEETS further reported from the Committee; That they had added to Standing Committee E the following Fifteen Members in respect of the Restoration of Pre-War Practices (No. 3) Bill: Rear-Admiral Adair, the Lord Advocate, Mr. Bigland, Colonel Sir Godfrey Collins, Colonel Greig, Sir Robert Home, Sir Edgar Jones, Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy, Captain Loseby, Mr. O'Grady, Mr. Samuel Samuel, Mr. Wardle. Mr. Charles White, Mr. Tyson Wilson, and Mr. Robert Young; and the following Fifteen Members (in respect of the Trade Disputes (No. 2) Bill: Sir Frederick Banbury, Mr. Bridgeman, Sir Clifford Cory, Mr. Charles Edwards, Mr. Galbraith, Colonel Walter Guinness, Mr. Johnstone, Mr. Kenyon, Mr. O'Grady, Mr. Rawlinson, Mr. Solicitor-General, Colonel Hall Walker, Mr. Tyson Wilson, Sir Alfred Yeo,
and Mr. Robert Young; and the following Fourteen Members (in respect of the Ferries (Acquisition by County Councils) Bill [Lords]): Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland, Mr. Hugh Barrie, Lieut.-Commander Chilcott, Sir William Howell Davies, Mr. Hinds, Sir Ellis Hume-Williams, Major McMicking, Dr. Donald Murray, Mr. O'Grady, Mr. Perkins, Captain Redmond, Brigadier-General Wigan, Mr. Tyson Wilson, and Mr. Robert Young.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP A).

Sir HARRY SAMUEL reported from the Committee on Group A of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Wednesday next, at Eleven of the clock.

Report to lie upon the Table.

BILL PRESENTED.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE BILL,—"to alter the rate of remuneration for the purposes of exception from insurance under the National Health Insurance Acts, 1911 to 1918, and for purposes in connection therewith," presented by Major Astor; supported by Dr. Addison, Mr. Munro, and Mr. Macpherson; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 111.]

Orders of the Day — ACQUISITION OF LAND (ASSESSMENT OF COMPENSATION) BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

CLAUSE 2.—(Rules for the Assessment of Compensation,)

In assessing compensation, an official valuer shall act in accordance with the following rules:

(1) No allowance shall be made on account of the acquisition being compulsory:
(2) The value of land shall, subject as hereinafter provided, be taken to be the amount which the land if sold in the open market by a willing seller might be expected to realise:
(3) The special suitability or adaptability of the land for any purpose shall not be taken into account if that purpose is a purpose to which ii could be applied only in pursuance of statutory powers, or for which there is no market apart from the special needs of a particular purchaser:
(4) Where the value of the land is increased by reason of the use thereof or of any premises thereon in a manner which could be restrained by any Court, or is contrary to law, or is detrimental to the health of the inmates of the premises or to the public health, the amount of that increase shall not be taken into account:
(5) Where land is, and but for the compulsory acquisition would continue to be, devoted to a purpose of such a nature that there is no general demand or market for land for that purpose, the compensation may, if the official valuer is satisfied that rein statement in some other place is bonâ fide intended, be assessed on the basis of the reasonable cost of equivalent reinstatement.

Sir R. THOMAS: On a point of Order. May I ask the grounds upon which my Amendment has been removed from the Paper? I proposed in Clause 2 Sub-section (2), to insert the words
All land used for agricultural purposes shall be strictly valued as such, and in no case shall the compensation paid exceed one hundred pounds per acre for the land, in addition to the value of any buildings and of any other structures on, in, or under the surface which are appurtenances to, or used in connection with, any such buildings, and of all growing timber, fruit trees, fruit bushes growing thereon, but not in addition to the value of the grass growing thereon.

Mr. SPEAKER: As the House has come to a decision regarding the basis upon which compensation is to be laid down, any whittling Amendments, which derogated from that, would be contrary to the decision at which the House has already arrived.

Sir R. THOMAS: I submit, with all due respect, that my Amendment does not interfere with the decision arrived at. It merely fixes the maximum prices of agricultural land. Owing to the fact that I had my Amendment down on the Paper I took no part in the debate on this important question of agricultural value. Had I known that my Amendment was not going to be discussed I would have taken part in the Debate yesterday.

Mr. SPEAKER: We had three or four hours' discussion upon the matter. Amendments were moved, and Amendments to those Amendments were moved, and new Amendments not appearing on the Paper were introduced, and that was the final decision of the House. Any Amendments which go contrary to that would obviously be against the decision at which the House had already arrived, and could not be entertained.

Sir R. THOMAS: May I point out that the Minister for Health stated that in Wales the main reason for the holding up of housing schemes is the difficulty of fixing the value of land, and that question, I respectfully submit, was not dealt with yesterday at all.

Mr. SPEAKER: That was the question which we discussed for three or four hours, and we decided to take the market value.

Major BARNES: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (3), to insert the words "or the requirements of any Government Department or any local or public authority."
Under Sub-section (2), the House has decided on the basis of value, and the value is to be taken as the market value. If hon. Members will give attention to Sub-section (3), they will see that there are certain matters which are excluded from being taken into account in fixing the market value. Special adaptability is not to be taken into account, and, secondly, the special needs of a particular purchaser are not to be taken into account. I propose to add a third factor which is not to be taken into account in arriving at the market value, and that factor is set forth in the words of my Amendment. I think the Home Secretary will agree with me that this Amendment is entirely in the spirit of the Sub-section. I take it that the exceptions which are
made under this Sub-section are intended to carry out the main object of the Bill, which is to cheapen land required for public purposes and to provide that such land shall be obtained at a cheaper rate than in the past. The two exceptions already in the Sub-section have been inserted with that object in view. Special adaptability is not to be taken into account, because that has made land dear in the past, and the special needs of the purchaser are not to be taken into account, because when they have been taken into account in the past more has had to be paid for the land. If the Government accept my Amendment, it will have the same effect as the other two exceptions in reducing the cost to the public of land required for public purposes. In the past the fact that land has been required by Government Departments or local authorities has resulted in raising the price of land against purchasers, for these public purposes. When a public authority has had to go into the market to buy land, their advent has sent the price of land up to such an extent that they have had to pay more for it than a private purchaser would have to pay. I do not think that will be disputed. Before they came into the market the landowner might have taken, say, £100 an acre from a private purchaser, but immediately a town council, a board of guardians, an education committee, or a Government Department come in the price of the land immediately rises, and they would be asked £200, or £300, or more per acre. The object of my Amendment is to prevent that taking place in the future. It is not to help the local authority to get land cheaper than anybody else, but to provide that they shall not pay more than anybody else. In that way no objection can be raised on the ground of equity or fair play. No one will contend that a local authority should have to pay more for the land they require than a private person. If the words of my Amendment are inserted, and a public body goes into the market to buy land under the compulsory powers of certain Acts of Parliament, the land will be referred for assessment under this Bill, and the official valuer will have to determine the value of the land without any reference at all to the fact, that a public body is in the market. In other words, the value will have to be determined by reference to the private demand for the land. If a farmer wants it, he will have to pay the farmer's price; if a builder wants it, he
will have to pay the builder's price; if a manufacturer wants it, he will have to pay the manufacturer's price; and whatever that price may be, the public authority will have to pay that price, but my Amendment will prevent their having to pay anything more.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I apprehend that the object of this Amendment is to make it clear that where land is to be sold at the market value the fact that it is required for a local authority is not to be taken into account. That seems to me so entirely to coincide with the spirit of the Bill that I will ask the House to accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

4.0 P.M.

Mr. A. SHAW: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words
and for the purposes of this Section an official valuer shall be entitled to be furnished with such returns, and assessments as he may require.
This is merely a proposal to give full effect to a proviso which was inserted by the Government yesterday afternoon in Sub-section (2), that the official valuer should have regard to returns and assessments. These returns and assessments are highly confidential documents, and I am informed by those whose opinion I trust that in law there is nothing in the proviso already inserted which will compel, say, the Inland Revenue Department to reveal these secrets. They perfectly legitimately and rightly regard this information as sacred, but for this purpose they ought to be made to reveal it, and the intention of the Government in inserting the proviso will be frustrated unless some such words are put in.

Mr. L. SCOTT: I beg to second the Amendment

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 3.—(Provision as to Procedure before Official Valuers.)

(1) In any proceedings before an official valuer, not more than one expert witness on either side shall be heard unless the official valuer otherwise directs.

(2) The official valuer shall, on the application of either party, specify the amount awarded in respect of any particular matter the subject of the award.

(3) The official valuer shall be entitled to enter on and inspect any. land which is the subject of proceedings before him.

(4) Proceedings under this Act shall be heard by an official valuer sitting in public.

(5) The fees to be charged in respect of proceedings before official valuers shall be such as the Treasury may prescribe.

Sir F. BANBURY: I have put down an Amendment to leave out Sub-section (1).
The object of this Amendment is to permit more than one expert witness to be called if it is necessary to do so, but I see that the Attorney-General has an Amendment next to mine on the Paper, and although it does not altogether do what I desire it goes a long way in that direction, and if the Home Secretary is going to move that Amendment I will not move mine.

Mr. SHORTT: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to add the words
Provided that where the claim includes a claim for compensation in respect of minerals, or disturbance of business as well as in respect of land; one additional expert witness on either side on the value of the minerals or, as the case may be, on the damage suffered by reason of the disturbance may be allowed.
This Amendment is really the same as that of the right hon. Baronet, only it is more specific. It will really be necessary in many inquiries to have more than one expert witness, because there will be totally different questions arising with which different witnesses must deal.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. SHORTT: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words,
It shall nut be necessary for an official valuer to make any declaration before entering into the consideration of any matter referred to him.

Sir F. BANBURY: I am not quite certain that I understand fully the meaning of this Amendment. Does it mean that the official valuer will not be required to make a declaration if he is interested in the matter coming before him; or, if not, what does it mean? Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member for Bridgwater (Colonel Sanders) will kindly inform us what this Amendment does mean. Apparently, the matter is one requiring some elucidation. I know the courtesy of my hon. and gallant Friend, and that he would explain it if he could. The Home Secretary has now reappeared, and perhaps he will explain to my ignorant mind the actual meaning of this Amendment.

Mr. SHORTT: Under the Lands Clauses Act every arbitrator or umpire, before he
can enter into an inquiry, has to make a declaration as to the award and other matters, and this adds to the proceedings.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. SHORTT: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert the words
Subject as aforesaid the reference committee may make rules regulating the procedure before official valuers.
That simply gives power to the Reference Committees, that is in England, for example, the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, and the President of the Surveyors' Institute, to make any rules regulating the procedure before the official valuers. Thus you will get uniformity of procedure and the most convenient procedure can be adopted.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Will Parliament have an opportunity of seeing what these rules are before they come into effect? It is rather important in view of the fact that we are setting up a new public; Department to know on what kind of procedure the new body will move. These rules might very well be laid in the usual way to give us an opportunity of seeing what they are.

Mr. SHORTT: Probably the simple way will be to do exactly what is done in the case of rules of court. That I think will be arranged.

Sir F. BANBURY: I am much obliged to the Home Secretary for his explanation. The Amendment says that the Reference Committee may make rules. The Home Secretary tells us that the object of the Amendment is to enable the Committee to-make rules. I can see that for myself in the Amendment, but I do not quite see how he can have these rules put upon the Table, because rules may be made at various times, and delays might ensue. Whether it is desirable to give these powers to a Reference Committee is a different matter. In all probability they will make the necessary rules, but it is rather awkward that we should have one Minister in charge of the Bill one day and another on another day with perhaps a difficulty of communicating with each other in the interval.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 4.—(Consolidation of Proceedings on Claims for Compensation in Respect of Various Interests in the Same Land.)

Where notices to treat have been served for the acquisition of the several interests in the
land to be acquired, the claims of the persons entitled to such interests shall, so far as practicable, and so far as not agreed and if the acquiring authority so desire be heard and determined by the same official valuer, and the reference committee may make rules providing that such claims shall be heard together.

Mr. L. SCOTT: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert the words
but the value of the several interests in the land having a market value shall be separately assessed.
The object of the Amendment is to make the procedure tally with what is the actual practice in the property market. It is a curious thing, well known to those who are familiar with the property market, that if you divide up a property into the different interests, freehold and leasehold, very often as a result you have a total figure, the valuation of the different interests, which is higher than the valuation of the property would be if it were all in one hand. The reason is that, as a rule, the freehold interest, the ground rent, is worth, say, twenty-Five years purchase, and the leasehold interest is worth fifteen years' purchase, with the result that the two added together are more than if the whole were in the hands of the freeholder without any lease. The importance of paying due regard to that fact is that a great deal of money, very often of small investors, is invested in house property, and if, when the property is compulsorily acquired you assess one lump sum for the whole and divide it up, the result would be that individual interests would get less than very likely they had actually paid in the market for their interests. This was a fact which we recognised on the Committee of which I had the honour to be chairman. In paragraph 15 of our second Report we took the case, for instance, of a freehold house with a rent of a rack rental value of £50. If this one interest were to be assessed, which might be worth sixteen years purchase, the total would be, say, £800; but if the same house were built by a lessee who had taken a lease at a separate ground rent of £10 the ground landlord would get, say, twenty-five years' purchase, making £250, and the lessee would obtain fifteen years' purchase of his interest, or £600; that is £850 in all, or £50 more than the £800. But we also recognised that it was desirable that where there are separate interests they should be assessed at the same time and before the same tribunal, so as to prevent one interest getting a share of what belongs to the other interest. But
that being done, it is still necessary to provide that the interests shall be separately assessed.

Mr. CAUTLEY: I beg to second the Amendment. I raised the same point on the Standing Committee and succeeded in having the Clause, as originally drafted, modified to meet the views expressed by the hon. Member. I think it is desirable that these words should be added.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I hope the Government will not accept this Amendment. It was debated upstairs.

Mr. CAUTLEY: The Attorney-General accepted it in Committee.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Was it a promise to be dealt with on Report?

Mr. CAUTLEY: I hardly like from memory to state definitely, but I understood the Amendment was accepted and an alteration made in the Bill. I believe the Clause as now drawn carries out that interpretation.

Sir D. MACLEAN: The view of the Seconder was that this Amendment was not really necessary. The Proposer does not agree. Two lawyers differ. I, therefore, think it would be a very sound thing not to proceed further. In this conflict of high legal authority, and with the deepest deference on my own part, I put it forward that these words would add to the values which the valuer would be likely to impose. In my view, the instructions which the Act gives to the valuer already are, to put it mildly, sufficiently definite for giving ample value to the claimant. I, therefore, earnestly trust the Govenrment will not proceed with this Amendment, which has been moved with a certain amount of fairness of view but seconded with so much diffidence.

Mr. CAUTLEY: I have no hesitation as to the effect. My recollection is distinctly that the Clause in the Bill as it stands now is not as it was when the Bill was originally produced. The Attorney-General did accept my proposal, which was to carry out the effect of this Amendment

Sir F. BANBURY: It is said that this Amendment ought not to be accepted because, first of all, two lawyers differ, and, secondly, because the words, if put in, would not have any effect. Yesterday the
Attorney-General proposed an Amendment and said that it would make no difference to the Bill. Then the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge said he did not agree with him. There was a simple instance of two lawyers differing, and one lawyer, who moved an Amendment, saying it would have no effect on the Bill. Yet my right hon. Friend (Sir D. Maclean.) voted for that Amendment. I think he can hardly say, therefore, that this Amendment must not be accepted for the reasons he has alleged.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: There appears to be some doubt as to what went on in Committee. I hope the Home Secretary will be able to explain what actually did happen upstairs. The Committee seem to have settled this point one way or another, and those of us who were not on the Committee, and have not had time to read the Reports of the Committee—[HON. MEMBERS: "There was no Report."] I am inclined to agree with the right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) that this Amendment should not be inserted, and unless the Government can show that a distinct promise was given on the Committee stage to have some such Amendment as this inserted in the Bill, I should be prepared to vote against the Amendment.

Mr. SHORTT: I am sorry I had not the advantage of being on the Committee, or of being in attendance, but I have before me the Bill as it went up to that Committee, and in the Bill as it went up I find after the words "such claims shall be heard together," were these words:
With a view to enabling the official valuer in the first instance to determine the value of the land and then to apportion the amount among the persona interested in such manner as having regard to their respective interests he considers just.
These words were left out by the Committee upstairs, and therefore the action which the Committee took coincided exactly with the spirit of this Amendment. I know that if my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General had been here he would have desired that the House should accept this Amendment. Therefore I feel that as that took place upstairs, and as my right hon. Friend who is in charge of the Bill would have accepted this Amendment, I must ask the House also to accept it.

Sir T. WHITTAKER: I would like to suggest this point. Suppose you have two
houses adjoining one another, and both are being taken. One of them is a freehold and the other a leasehold, but both houses are exactly the same. Is a different price to be paid for similar properties? The suggestion is that because there is a ground rent on one, and a leasehold interest in it, those two properties in that one property are worth more than the next door property, which is all in one hand and purely freehold. That is a suggestion of the Mover of the Amendment. It means that two houses standing together precisely the same are to be paid for at different prices. Surely that illustrates the absurdity of the position ' They are precisely of the same value, but because there are two interests in the one you are to pay an additional value for that one over and above what you pay for the other. The thing is an absurdity.

Mr. T. THOMSON: I hope the House will not accept this Amendment. It is difficult for the layman to follow the matter when legal minds are so much at variance as to its effect, but I understood from the Mover of the Amendment that he suggested that if the Amendment was carried the effect would be that £50 more would be paid in the particular instance he gave than would otherwise be the case. It seems to me unfortunate that the Committee have decidedly weakened the effect of the Bill upstairs. The proposal now is to weaken further what even is left. I am sure that the country at large is disappointed that the Bill has not gone far enough, and I hope the House will resist any proposal to whittle away what was to have been a great measure to secure land at a cheaper price.

Major BARNES: I was a member of the Committee, and listened to the proceedings, but I cannot change my memory exactly with what took place. My own feeling is that if the Attorney-General had given any pledge or promise on the lines of the Amendment, with what little knowledge I have of him since I came to the House, knowledge of his remarkable memory and the way in which he knows exactly what is taking place, I am sure he would have had an Amendment on the Paper giving effect to his promise.

Mr. L. SCOTT: I asked the Attorney-General about my Amendment, and he said he intended to accept it. That is the reason why he did not put it down himself.

Major BARNES: There is nothing more to be said, then, on that point. The effect of this Amendment is against the spirit of the Bill. The Bill is for the purpose of effecting some cheapening of properties acquired. The effect of the Amendment will be to make property dearer. Not only that, but there is the extraordinary position that where you have property which has several interests in it, you are going to extinguish all those interests, and, as a result, get a property which is worth less than the sum you paid for it. That is to say, the public authorities, by exorcising their powers, are going to be compelled to purchase the various interests in a property at prices which, when they are paid, will leave the property worth less than the prices paid for it. That is entirely contrary to the spirit of the Bill. The position described by the right hon. Member for the Spen Valley (Sir T. Whittaker) seems to be an extraordinary one—namely, that you should be purchasing properties of exactly the same character, and pay for them different prices It may be true that there is some hardship involved to people who have paid for interests in property sums which, taken together, amount to more than the property is worth. Against that you have the injustice of compelling local authorities to pay different prices for exactly similar properties. As the Amendment is so entirely against the spirit of the Bill, I hope the Home Secretary will reconsider his decision, and that the House will not accept the Amendment.

Colonel GREIG: I hope the Government will not accept this Amendment. It will introduce complication and expense. Take a case which might occur in England. There might be a piece of land of copyhold tenure. There is in such a case the landlord's interest, then the copyholder's interest, then, possibly, a lessee from the latter, and even a sub-lessee, or occupant. All these must be valued and assessed separately.

Mr. SHORTT: I do not think there can be any advantage by attempting to reconsider what I have said before. The Bill, as it went up to Committee, was in the form I have already mentioned. So far as the Bill before this House is concerned, the provision is that all these interests, separate interests and separate claims, can be heard together. No one has put down an Amendment restoring the Bill to its original form. I cannot, by merely refusing this Amendment, restore the Bill to its old form. The Amendment makes clear only what the Committee upstairs decided, and as to which there is no dispute. The claims are quite distinct now; there is a notice to treat for each interest; and the Act merely provides that these claims can be heard together, but not that they are to be heard as one at all.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 181; Noes, 44.

Division No. 45.]
AYES.
[4.29 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral
Campbell, J. G. D.
Edwards, J. H. (Glam., Neath)


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Campion, Col. W. R.
Eyres-Monsell, Commander


Ainsworth, Captain C.
Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)
Falcon, Captain M.


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. Martin
Carr, W. T.
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray


Ashley, Col. Wilfred W.
Casey, T. W.
Fell, Sir Arthur


Baird, John Lawrence
Cautley, Henry Strother
FitzRoy, Capt. Hon. Edward A.


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.
Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Foxcroft, Captain C.


Barnett, Captain Richard W.
Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Fraser, Major Sir Keith


Barnston, Major Harry
Child, Brig.-Gen. Sir Hill
Gardner, E. (Berks., Windsor)


Barrand, A. R.
Clay, Capt. H. H. Spender
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham


Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Clyde, James Avon
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John


Bigland, Alfred
Coats, Sir Stuart
Glyn, Major R.


Birchall, Major J. D.
Colfox, Major W. P.
Green, A. (Derby)


Bird, Alfred
Colvin, Brigadier-General R. B.
Greenwood, Col. Sir Hamar


Blair, Major Reginald
Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole
Gretton, Col. John


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Courthope, Major George Loyd
Griggs, Sir Peter


Borwick, Major G. O.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Univ.)
Gritten, W. G. Heward


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Craig, Capt. C. (Antrim)
Gwynne, R. S.


Brassey, H. L. C.
Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirk'dy)
Hamilton, Major C. G. C. (Altrincham)


Breese, Major C. E.
Davidson, Major-Gen. Sir John H.
Harris, Sir H. P. (Paddington, S.)


Briggs, Harold
Davies, Sir D. S. (Denbigh)
Haslam, Lewis


Bruton, Sir J.
Davies, T. (Cirencester)
Henderson, Major V. L.


Buchanan, Lieut.-Col. A. L. H.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington)
Hennessy, Major G.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Dawes, J. A.
Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)


Burn Colonel C. R. (Torquay)
Dockrell, Sir M.
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Butcher, Sir J. G.
Doyie, N. Grattan
Higham, C. F. (Islington, S.)


Hoare, Lt-Col. Sir Samuel J. G.
Newman, Major J. (Finchley, Mddx.)
Stevens, Marshall


Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir S. (Midlothian)
Nicholl, Com. Sir Edward
Stewart, Gershom


Hope, John Deans (Berwick)
Nicholson, R. (Doncaster)
Sugden, W, H.


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Nicholson, W. (Petersfield)
Sykes, Col. Sir A. J. (Knutsford)


Horne, Edgar (Guildford)
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Horne, Sir Robert (Hillhead)
O'Neill, Captain Hon. Robert W. H.
Terrell, G. (Chippenham, Wilts.)


Houston, Robert Paterson
Parker, James
Terrell, Capt. R. (Henley, Oxford)


Hughes, Spencer Leigh
Parry, Major Thomas Henry
Thomas, Sir R. (Wrexham, Denb.)


Hunter, Gen. Sir A. (Lancaster)
Pearce, Sir William
Thomas-Stanford, Charles


Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G.
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Tickler, Thomas George


Hurst, Major G. B.
Perring, William George
Townley, Maximilan G.


Illingworth, Rt. Hon. Albert H.
Philipps, Sir O. C. (Chester)
Tryon, Major George Clement


Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)
Pinkham, Lieutenant-Colonel Charles
Waddington, R.


Jodrell, N. P.
Pratt, John William
Walton, Sir Joseph (Barnslev)


Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)
Pulley, Charles Thornton
Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.


Kelly, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Purchase, H. G.
Ward, Colonel L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


King, Com. Douglas
Raeburn, Sir William
Wardle, George J.


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Ratcliffe, Henry Butler
Warren, Sir Alfred H.


Law, A. J. (Rochdale)
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Reid, D. D.
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Remer, J. B.
Willey, Lt.-Col. F. V.


Lorden, John William
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Williams, Lt. Com. C. (Tavistock)


Lowe, Sir F. W.
Rodger, A. K.
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald


M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)
Roundell, Lieutenant-Colonel R. F.
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.


Macleod, John Mackintosh
Rowlands, James
Wilson, Capt. A. Stanley (Hold'ness)


Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)
Wilson, Col. Leslie (Reading)


Macquisten, F. A.
Samuel, A. M. (Farnham, Surrey)
Wilson, Col. M. (Richmond, Yorks.)


Maitland, Sir A. D. Steel-
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge and Hyde)


Marriott, John Arthur R.
Samuels, Rt. Hon. A. W. (Dublin Univ.)
Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)


Mildmay, Col. Rt. Hon. Francis B.
Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)
Woods, Sir Robert


Molson, Major John Elsdale
Seely, Maj.-Gen. Rt. Hon. John
Yate, Col. Charles Edward


Morrison, H. (Salisbury)
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Young, William (Perth and Kinross)


Murchison, C. K.
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W.)



Murray, Major C. D. (Edinburgh, S.)
Sprot, Col. Sir Alexander
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Capt.


Murray, Hon. G. (St. Rollox)
Stanley, Colonel Hon. G. F. (Preston)
F. Guest, and Colonel Sanders,


Murray, William (Dumfries)




NOES.


Arnold, Sydney
Hinds, John
Sturrock, J. Leng-


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle. E.)
Johnstone, J.
Swan, J. E. C.


Bentinck, Lt.-Col. Lord H. Cavendish-
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander
Thomas, Brig-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Briant, F.
Kenyon, Barnet
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. J. M. (Stirling)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Cairns, John
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Waterson, A. E.


Coote, Colin R. (Isle of Ely)
Mallalieu, Frederick William
Wedgwood, Col. Josiah C


Crooks, Rt. Hon. William
Mason, Robert
White, Charles F. (Derby, W.)


Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)
Murray, Lt.-Col. Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)
Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.


Edge, Captain William
Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Neal, Arthur
Winfrey, Sir Richard


Galbraith, Samuel
Rae, H. Norman
Wood, Major Mackenzie (Aberdeen, C.)


Gardiner, J. (Perth)
Rees, Captain J. Tudor (Barnstaple)



Glanville, Harold James
Richardson, R. (Houghton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.


Graham, W. (Edinburgh)
Royce, William Stapleton
Hogge and Major Entwistle.


Hancock, John George
Smith, Capt. A, (Nelson and Colne)

CLAUSE 5.—(Provisions as to Costs.)

(1) Where the acquiring authority has made an unconditional offer in writing of any sum as compensation to any claimant and the sum awarded by an official valuer to that claimant does not exceed the sum offered, the official valuer shall order the claimant to bear his own costs and to pay the costs of the acquiring authority incurred after the offer was made.

(2) If the official valuer is satisfied that a claimant has failed to deliver to the acquiring authority a notice in writing of the amount claimed by him giving sufficient particulars and in sufficient time to enable the acquiring authority to make a proper offer, the foregoing provisions of this Section shall apply as if an unconditional offer had been made by the acquiring authority at the time when in the opinion of the official valuer sufficient particulars should have been furnished and the claimant had been awarded a sum not exceeding the amount of such offer.

The notice of claim shall state the exact nature of the interest in respect of which compensation is claimed, and give details of the compensation claimed, distinguishing the amounts under separate heads and showing how the amount claimed under each head is calculated.

(3) Where a claimant has made an unconditional offer in writing to accept any sum as compensation and has complied with the pro visions of the last preceding Sub-section, and the sum awarded is equal to or exceeds that sum, the official valuer shall order the acquiring authority to bear their own costs and to pay the costs of the claimant incurred after the offer was made.

(4) Subject as aforesaid the costs of the arbitration under this Act shall be in the discretion of the official valuer who may direct to and by whom and in what manner those costs or any part thereof shall be paid, and the official valuer may in any case disallow the cost of counsel.

(5) An official valuer may himself tax the amount of costs ordered to be paid, or may direct in what manner they are to be taxed.

(6) Where an official valuer orders the claimant to pay the costs, or any part of the costs, of the acquiring authority, the acquiring authority may deduct the amount so payable by the claimant from the amount of the compensation payable to him:

Provided that if the amount of the costs so ordered to be paid by the claimant exceeds the amount of the compensation payable to him, the excess shall be recoverable from him by the acquiring authority summarily as a civil debt.

(7) For the purpose of this Section, costs include any fees, charges, and expenses of the arbitration or award.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Amendments standing in the name of the hon. Member for East Grinstead to leave out Subsection (1) and to insert after that Subsection the words "unless the official valuer otherwise orders," are incompatible.

Mr. CAUTLEY: I beg to move, at the beginning of Sub-section (1), to insert the words "unless the official valuer otherwise orders."
I had given notice of an Amendment to leave out Sub-section (1), but I do not propose to move that now. My Amendment relates to the question of the cost of proceedings before the official valuers. My contention will be that the provisions as they stand, by enforcing a cast-iron rule, will lead to great hardship, and that the Bill would be very much facilitated if we were to adopt some system which would give reasonable discretion to the official valuer in dealing with these cases. Let me explain first what are the provisions of the Lands Clauses Act on this subject, and then come to Clause 5 to show the variations made in the present Bill. Under the Lands Clauses Acts, if the acquiring authority made no formal offer to the claimant, that acquiring authority had to pay the whole of the costs of the arbitration. If, on the other hand, the acquiring authority made a formal offer to the claimant, and the amount ultimately awarded was either less than or equal to the offer, the claimant had to pay his own costs, and the acquiring authority had to pay its own costs. In other words, the claimant was never made liable for the costs of the hearing before the arbitration. The reason I suggest was that the proceedings were in no case due to the action of the claimant. His land was being taken compulsorily, and as there
was no other means of assessing the compensation except by arbitration, it was a fair thing that the person who put the process in motion should pay the costs. The present Bill goes on a different principle, and it recognises that the private owner of land has to give up such land as may be required for public purposes as and when it is required, and to such an extent as may be required. The Bill goes further on the principle that, fair compensation as laid down by the Bill should be provided, and no more than fair compensation. The whole of the Lands Clauses Acts remains in force except so far as this Bill alters it. Therefore the power is still left to the acquiring authority to make an offer, and the proposal in the Bill is this, that if the amount awarded is less than or equal to the amount offered by the local authority, the claimant shall then pay not only his own costs but also the costs of the local authority. But the Bill goes further and also provides that if the amount awarded is greater than the offer made by the local authority, it does not have the co-relative consequence that the local authority should pay the whole costs before the arbitrator, but it leaves that subject to the discretion of the arbitrator.
Before the Committee I moved what is really the first Amendment, of which I gave notice and which I do not propose to move to-day. That would have given the arbitrator an absolute discretion on the question of costs. I incline to think that that would have been the very best way of arriving at the barest justice between the claimant and the acquiring authority. I still incline to think if these men who are to be appointed arbitrators are to be trusted with settlements between the parties amounting to hundreds of thousands of pounds, they might have been trusted also to deal with the question of costs. Some arbitrations by public authorities run to some very large amounts. The London County Council, for instance, have some claims of £200,000 or £300,000 to deal with. All this would take place under this Bill, and I still think it would have been fairer to have left the whole matter of costs to the discretion of the arbitrator, but what I now propose is to preface the whole arrangement as to costs with the words "unless the official valuer other-
wise orders." That would leave the provision in the Bill as drawn, that if the amount awarded is less than or equal to the amount offered, the claimant shall primâ facie be responsible for the costs of both parties, but it gives a discretion to the arbitrator. Think for a moment who the claimants will be. They will be people ignorant as a rule of all procedure either in the Law Courts or formal arbitrations. A great many of them will be trustees. A great deal of land in this country is tied up under settlement, belonging to trustees or executors for widows and children, and I venture to say that in far the largest number of cases that will come forward the claimants themselves can only leave the matter to their own advisers. The claims will be very varied and will involve composite claims for loss of business, for removal, for mineral rights, timber rights, water rights, injurious affection, and so on, all of which are extremely difficult questions. With a view to cutting down the cost of these proceedings, we have limited the amount of expert advice that can be taken by these claimants, and these trustees, or single owners in many cases, can only trust these people, but out of these cases very large awards may have to be made, as there will be large claims, under the Electricity Act, for instance, running into hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of pounds. As the Act stands, with a cast-iron rule, if there is an offer of £100,000 and an award of £99,000, the whole of the costs of both sides are going to be put on the claimant, without any power to the arbitrator to exercise his discretion. Take a composite business claim, where the evidence of the claimant has been accepted and the acquiring authority's evidence has been wrong, yet on the sum total of the award the amount happens to be a few pounds less than the offer. I urge that having a cast-iron rule like this will lead to very grave injustice.
I have subsequent Amendments, one of which is that the same rule shall apply to the acquiring authority as to the claimant. The only logical reason that can possibly be given for mulcting the claimant with costs, if the amount awarded is less than the offer, is that primâ facie the claimant has been unreasonable in not accepting what was ultimately decided to be a fair offer and has therefore been the cause of
the arbitration proceedings. If that is so, the same ought to apply equally on the other hand to the acquiring authority in that it makes an offer which is shown to be inadequate, and thus causes an arbitration to be held. If the words are prefaced with the discretion that I suggest, the rule would remain that primâ facie the loser has to pay the costs, but there would be the discretion. It is the tendency in all Acts of Parliament now to entrust the judge with discretion as to costs, because with elasticity as to costs greater justice can be secured. A False analogy was raised by the Attorney-General in the Standing Committee when he referred to the Law Courts. In the Law Courts when a claim is made it is open to the defendant in putting in his defence to pay money into Court and to say to the plaintiff, "If you are right £1,000, or £500, as the case may be, is enough; take that and stop the action," and if the case goes on for trial and the amount awarded is less than that sum, the plaintiff will have to pay the costs, but if it is larger than the amount paid into Court the defendant would pay all the costs. The false analogy I suggest is this, that in that case the defendant has been in the wrong, while here the claimant has never been in the wrong, and there has been no breach of contract or tortious act. It can only be said that he committed an error of judgment in not taking the offer that was made. The two things are not comparable at all, and I think the Bill as it stands would not do justice but would do considerable hardship. We are told that our Colonies are rather in advance of this country, but I find that in the Australian Commonwealth Act entitled the Property for Public Purposes (Acquisition) Act they have the provision which I am suggesting. I therefore hope the Government will accept my Amendment.

Colonel FITZROY: I beg to second the Amendment.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir G. Hewart): It is sometimes said that there is no rhetorical device so successful as the device of suspense, and I noticed with some interest, that my hon. and learned Friend kept us on tenterhooks for a considerable time before making quite clear whether he was speaking to-the first Amendment in his name or to the second. But there came a moment when my anxiety was relieved, and I found he was speaking only upon the second Amendment.

Mr. CAUTLEY: Each was only lost by one vote in Committee.

5.0 P.M.

Sir G. HEWART: It is not without significance that when he put his Amendments on the Paper he was in some doubt whether he should not propose to leave out the whole of this transaction. In fairness to him, let me add that if that Amendment had been moved and carried, he has on the Paper consequential Amendments the total effect of which would be to leave the whole discretion as to costs in the hands of the official valuer. The proposals in the Bill represent the result, I will not say of a bargain, but of a compromise in the Committee. What was the object of the Government in making not, indeed, this proposal, but a proposal very similar to it? One of the main objects of this Bill is to diminish expense, and closely connected with that object is the object of discouraging idle litigation. That is an object which, as every Member of the House will admit, members of the legal profession, like my hon. and learned Friend, always have at heart. As the law stands, under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act of 1845 it is open to the acquiring authority to make a statutory offer, and if in the result the amount which is awarded to the claimant is not more than that statutory offer, the whole penalty which the claimant suffers for his persistence in continuing the controversy after the offer was made is that he does not collect his costs from the acquiring authority. In other words, it is one of the vices of the existing system that the vendor may carry on a kind of gamble. If he thinks he has some chance of getting more than the amount which is stated in the statutory offer, ho can go on, with the assurance that if he succeeds the acquiring authority will pay the costs of both sides, and if he fails he will not have to do more than pay his own costs. So far as I am aware, there is no other department of litigation in which that one sided advantage is given to one of the parties, and the analogy which I suggested—which does not commend itself to my hon. and learned Friend—of payment into Court and what happens after payment into Court is, as I submit, perfectly sound. What happens where, in some other litigation, a plaintiff makes a claim? The defendant may pay money into Court, even though there is no real claim at all, even though there has been
no fault committed or contract broken, and from that time forth the litigation is conducted at the peril of the party who refuses to take the money out of Court. If in the end the plaintiff recovers no more than that sum—a sum which may not be mentioned to the jury—he is responsible from that moment not only for his own costs, but for all the costs of the litigation. Why? Because from that moment on, that which has rendered the continuance of the controversy necessary has been his obstinacy, and nothing else. It was suggested, and it is suggested again, that it is enough to leave that matter in the discretion of the official valuer.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will the official valuer know the offer that is made?

Sir G. HEWART: No, I should think not. I should think the official valuer ought to be in the position of a judge, but, however that may be, the alternative proposal was that complete discretion should be allowed to the official valuer, and the complaint was made that we were being no less one-sided in the proposal we made than is the existing law one-sided in favour of the vendor. Perceiving the force of that, I undertook to formulate words which now are Sub-section (3) of this Clause, so that what is sauce for the acquiring authority is sauce for the claimant, and vice versa.

Mr. CAUTLEY: It is not.

Sir G. HEWART: My hon. and learned Friend says it is not. I think I can show in a moment that it is. What is the position? Under Sub-section (1) of this-Clause, if the claimant recovers no more than the amount of the offer, then it is the duty of the official valuer to order the claimant to bear his own costs, and also the costs of the acquiring authority incurred after that offer was made. The importance of that imperative direction is this—that it gives clear notice to everybody concerned. It was said that if you are doing that as against the claimant, you ought to do it also as against the acquiring authority, and that is done so far as it can be done by Sub-section (3). The point which is now in dispute is whether this shall be imperative, or whether the valuer shall have a discretion. If you take away the imperative character of this discretion, you will deprive it of
more than half its value. If Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (3) are read together the result is perfectly fair. For these reasons I cannot accept this Amendment.

Sir F. BANBURY: I do not quite understand the argument of my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General. As I understand it, he has stated that at present, under the Lands Clauses Act, if a person, who receives a certain offer, refuses that offer, and a less sum is awarded than the original offer, it is not fair that the person making the offer should be allowed the costs of himself and of the person who has refused that offer.

Sir G. HEWART: I do not think I ever suggested that.

Sir F. BANBURY: Surely that is the Bill. Under Sub-section (1) of this Clause, if he gets less than the offer which was made, and which was refused, he has to pay for his own costs and the costs of the acquiring authority. That is what I meant to say, and the Attorney-General says that the reverse was the case under the Lands Clauses Act, and that that was not fair. I do not agree with the Attorney-General. The reverse ought also to be enacted—namely, that if the claimant receives morn than the acquiring authority has offered, then the acquiring authority ought to pay not only their own costs but the costs of the claimant. The Attorney-General says that is so under the Bill. Am I not right?

Sir G. HEWART: What I was referring to was a correlative provision in the case where the claimant says he is willing to accept a certain sum and the authority does not pay that sum, and then the claimant gets that or more. If the right hon. Baronet will be good enough to look at Sub-section (3) he will see what the correlative provision is to which I refer.

Sir F. BANBURY: I say that it is not correlative in any kind of way. The correlative proposal is that where an authority has made an offer and the valuer awards a larger sum than that offer, then the authority should pay their own costs and the costs of the claimant. That would be the correlative position, but that is not what is laid down in Sub-section (3), which is a totally different thing. Subsection (3) deals with a claimant who has made an unconditional offer in writing to accept any sum as compensation. I do
not know that I quite understand what that means. Does it mean that where, say, I am a claimant, and I have said to the Corporation of the City of London, for instance, "I will take any sum you like to give me,'' without making any statement as to the amount—

Sir G. HEWART: No.

Sir F. BANBURY: It may not mean that, but the words are these:
Where a claimant has made an unconditional offer in writing to accept any sum as compensation.

Sir G. HEWART: That is, of course, a particular sum.

Sir F. BANBURY: It docs not say so. I only wish Acts of Parliament would be made a little bit clearer, so that everyone would understand them, and then possibly there would not be so many cases go to law. I understand, then, that it means any sum specified. That does not meet the point either, because it says:
Where a claimant has made an unconditional offer in writing to accept any sum as compensation and has complied with the provisions of the last preceding Sub-section, and the sum awarded is equal to or exceeds that sum,
then, under those circumstances alone, the authority shall pay their own costs, and the costs of the claimant. My point is that where there is a dispute the same treatment should be meted out to both parties. That is to say, where an offer has been made by the authority of, say, £1,000, and £l,200 is awarded, then, under those circumstances, the authority ought to pay their own costs and the costs of the claimant. As the Bill stands, that is not so; but if, where an offer of £l,000 has been made, and the sum awarded is £800, then the seller has to pay not only his own costs but the costs of the authority. That is what is in the Bill. I say it is grossly unfair to inflict on one party an obligation which you do not inflict on the other under exactly similar circumstances. Therefore if the Attorney-General wishes, as he says he does, that the procedure shall be correlative, he is bound to accept either this Amendment or the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend which comes on later. It is really a very important point, because, after all, we must remember that we are dealing with property which is very hard to acquire in these days, and ought not to be lightly taken away. We hear a great deal about local authorities not being injured,
but we have also the right to see that the individual is not injured. The local authority has behind it the purse of the ratepayers, whereas the individual has only his own purse. I hope the Attorney-General, who I know wishes to be fair, will reconsider this matter.

Sir G. HEWART: I seem to have failed to make my meaning clear to the right hon. Baronet, and, therefore, if I may, I will add just one word. The correlatives of which I was speaking are these. Certain matters are left to the discretion of the official valuer. Certain other matters have imperative orders. The imperative orders are given in two cases. One is where any authority has made an offer, which is not accepted, and, in the result, no more than that sum is awarded. The costs from the time of that offer, the Bill provides, shall be paid by the claimant. The correlative is where the claimant has said, "I will take such and such a sum," and the authority does not pay it, and in the result that sum is awarded. In that case the fault is the fault of the acquiring authority, and there is the direction that the acquiring authority shall bear the costs. Outside these two cases, there is a considerable margin of doubt and difficulty. The excess may be very small There may be particular circumstances, and so where a case does not fall within one of those two categories, the Bill leaves the costs at the discretion, of the official valuer. How can the right hon. Baronet complain about that? Does he trust the official valuer? His proposal is to leave everything to the official valuer. If that is so, he cannot blame us for leaving these more difficult and debatable matters to the discretion of the official valuer, while you make it plain in the two classes of cases, one upon one side, and one upon the other, that the official valuer shall do a certain thing.

Mr. L. SCOTT: The point is one of considerable importance, because there is no doubt that, by wise provision with regard to costs, the expense of the acquisition of land may be greatly cut down. My Committee considered very strongly indeed that, under the present system, one of the greatest abuses has arisen from the fact that, unless the authority made an offer which was greater than the amount awarded, the authority had to pay the whole costs, and that when it did make an offer greater than the amount awarded
it still had to pay its own costs. That is, undoubtedly, one of the chief causes of the expense of the system. The view we took was a strong one; that you ought to have a very good tribunal and then give complete discretion to that tribunal under general rules, indicating to the tribunal that they should see that each party acted really reasonably. The essence of these matters is that the parties should try to come to an agreement. That is what is wanted. Nothing will save cost and expense more than the parties coming to an agreement as to what is a fair price to be paid. Therefore what the arbitrator ought to do is to consider the conduct of the parties and to see whether one or other of them has really forced the matter into Court. That party ought to pay the costs. I recognise that by Sub-section (1) of this Clause the Government have endeavoured to state what really obviously should be the leading principle in the exercise of the discretion. Whether it is a left discretion or whether it is made mandatory is a minor question. It does not seem to me, however, that they have acted quite fairly by the claimant in Sub-section (3). For this reason: the claimant is—rightly pursuant to the suggestion of my Committee—called upon to give full particulars of his claim, showing the basis of the claim, and giving the details of the valuation upon which the claim is based. In doing that, therefore, the claimant is forced to put before the authority, not a sort of fantastic fighting figure such as is put before the authorities to-day, but a figure based upon the valuation of those who have advised him. That ought to be a genuine figure. Sub-suction (3) seems to me to involve the tacit assumption that the figure stated the claim is not a genuine figure but figure put forward for fighting purposes. Why do I say that? Because Sub section (3) says:
Where a claimant has made an unconditional offer—
which, ex hypothesi, will be less than the amount of his claim—because he has already put that forward—and then he gets that figure or a larger figure he is to have his costs. But—
save as aforesaid
it goes on in Sub-section (4), "the arbitrator is to have a discretion."

Sir G. HEWART: Why should it not be the same figure?

Mr. SCOTT: The Attorney-General says, "Why should it not be the same figure as that put forward in his claim?" Well, then, it means that there is to be a rule on the one hand that the authority may make an offer not disclosed to the arbitrator at all, and on the other hand, there is the claim of the claimant put before the arbitrator, and if the arbitrator knocks off one penny of that claim the claimant is to lose his costs. That is not reasonable. That is not justice. That is not the object of the proceedings. The burden upon the arbitrator in having to give costs in a certain way would, in my submission, deflect his judgment consciously or unconsciously. He would say, "It is not fair that because I think this claim is exaggerated by a few pounds"—it may be £50 or £100—"that I, by putting the award at the true figure, thereby deprive the claimant of his costs." This is to load the dice against te claimant in an unfair way. I for one—and I know my Committee took the same view—were most anxious to prevent the abuses which have arisen from claims being unreasonable, and in some cases almost blackmail upon the authorities. People made a public authority pay an undue claim because the authority, knowing the cost of arbitration, was willing to pay a substantial sum extra by agreement in order to avoid the cost and trouble of arbitration. That has been done undoubtedly in some cases. We want to stop that. But it is most important, whilst doing all we can to prevent improper claims—to prevent inflated claims, to prevent unreasonable conduct, and to make men reasonable in, so to speak, taking less than they think they arc properly entitled to—on the other hand not to treat them unjustly. Therefore, I do very much urge upon the Government that, as they have made up their minds that they cannot leave the official valuer complete discretion—and I recognise strong arguments both ways on that point—as they cannot do that, that they should make the thing really correlative, and say that the alternative should be that if no offer is made or if an offer is made and more than the amount of the offer is awarded the discretion of the tribunal -should be left absolutely unhampered. My own feeling would be that it is better to say simply that the general rule should be Subsection (1):
Less than the offer by the authority the claimant pays the costs, no offer or more than the offer by the authority, the authority pays the costs,
leaving it subject to the overriding discretion of the tribunal to deal with exceptional cases, because exceptional cases do arise in practice. I very strongly urge upon the Government to take that line, because giving that measure of discretion—a very minor measure of discretion—within the lines of the general rules laid down, whilst strengthening the tribunal, should really achieve the object for which we set out—justice to all the parties.

Major BARNES: The Amendment before the House formed the subject of very considerable debate in Committee upstairs. That Debate does not appear in the Bill in its amended form, but so far as my recollection is concerned, unassisted by an official report, my impression is that on the whole what is in the Bill was accepted as being a reasonable position. What is the position? It is that for the last seventy years or more, under the Lands Clauses Act, public authorities have been entirely in a one-sided position. If they have made any error they have had the brunt of it. So far as one remembers, or sees, there is not any great objection taken to that on the part of the people who dispose of land to the public authorities. The Attorney-General said, when this Bill was before the Committee upstairs, the original proposal was to put public authorities into the same position under this Bill as has been the case for the last seventy years under the Land Clauses Act. Upstairs it was pointed out that there was some unfairness in that, and to meet it the Attorney-General came forward with what is now Sub-section (3). As the Bill stands, so far as a layman can understand it, it does seem that the two parties are exactly in the same position. If the local authority makes an offer for less than the amount awarded, then the local authority has to bear the whole of the cost. If the claimant makes an offer, and the sum awarded is equal to or exceeds that sum, then the acquiring authority bears the cost.

Sir F. BANBURY: May I interrupt the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I think he misunderstands it. It is not that the local authority makes the offer for less than the sum awarded; it is that the person who is the seller makes an offer and gets more for it.

Major BARNES: That is putting it conversely. Sub-section (1) says:
(1) Where the acquiring authority has made an unconditional offer … and the sum awarded
by an official valuer to that claimant does not exceed the sum offered, the official valuer shall order the claimant to bear his own costs and to pay the costs of the acquiring authority,
in that case the acquiring authority gets the benefit. In Sub-section (3) it states:
Where a claimant has made an unconditional offer in writing to accept any sum as compensation…and the sum awarded is equal to or exceeds that sum, the official valuer shall order the acquiring authority to bear their own costs.

Sir F. BANBURY: That is just what I said, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not put the matter quite rightly.

Major BARNES: Well, it is between the right hon. Baronet and myself. The point is that, as I understand the Amendment, the whole matter is to be left to the discretion of the official valuer.

Sir F. BANBURY: Yes.

Major BARNES: But if that is done, while perfect jsutice and perfect fairness might be done, there is removed the very purpose for which these two Clauses have been introduced. That purpose is to avoid litigation; to make the local authority consider carefully, and also the claimant, the cost of litigation. That can only be secured if these two Clauses remain. If the Amendment desired by the hon. Member for East Grinstead is accepted, the whole of that disappears entirely. There is always the chance, and the very strong chance, that the sympathy of the official valuer may enable the claimant who has been unreasonable to escape the consequences. But the maintenance of these two Clauses does not rest so much upon the question of fairness. There is a rough-and-ready justice in them. So long, however, as they are in the Bill they will make both parties exceedingly careful how they enter into litigation, because in making any offer, if that offer is not justified by the evidence, they are likely to be penalised under this Clause. As one of the main objects of this Bill is to secure quick procedure and to avoid litigation, this object can only be secured if we adhere to the Clauses as they stand, and the Amendment is not accepted.

Mr. HORNE: My excuse for intervening in this Debate is that for many years before I had the honour of coming to this House I was occupied under the Treasury in the purchase of a very large number of properties which they were acquiring in London under several Bills, and they put
the whole matter into my hands. I have listened to this Debate. There are one or two matters with which I could not quite agree. I do not think people understand that nineteen out of every twenty cases which come forward are settled amicably, and never come into Court at all. It is only in the twentieth case that there is any fight. Consequently, everybody seems to imagine that the question of costs is such a very serious matter, and that it is the local authorities, or those exercising compulsory powers, who suffer m consequence. I then always had the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General at my command for the purpose of carrying out these cases, and that was a very great weight in my favour. I found that many claimants, rather than face the prospects of the costs, accepted my figures because they did not wish to go into litigation. I think some of the points provided for in this Bill are quite good. As to Sub-section (2), that makes a provision which has always been very much wanted. With reference to the previous Amendment for the insertion of the words, "unless the official valuer otherwise orders," I do not think I can agree with that proposal. The second Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Cautley) is one which ought to be pressed by all the means in our power. The provision in Sub-section (3) is not really a fair one, and it is not equivalent to the scaled offer. The sealed offer was not always made use of by Law Officers when I had the honour of acting with them, and I know Sir Richard Webster, as he then was, very often refused to allow me to submit a sealed offer. He had his own reasons, and I think he was the most experienced man I ever had to do with in compensation cases, and I have no doubt that his reasons were good.
The sealed offer is only known to the purchasing authority. Under Sub-section (3) the offer must be communicated to the arbitrator. It must be a figure which has been made out in consequence of the notice to the claimant as to the lines on which the compensation is to be made out. Therefore, while the sealed offer is hidden from the arbitrator, the offer of the claimant is an open one, and would certainly be detrimental to his interests. Another point here is that only the costs of the claimant incurred after the offer was made are to be paid for. As a matter of fact this Clause is not at all equivalent to the
sealed offer, and would give a very unfair advantage to the purchasing authority. Naturally, for old associations' sake, I would like to be on the same side as the Attorney-General on this occasion, but I am sorry to say that if this matter is pressed to a Division I shall have to vote against him.

Mr. TOWNLEY: I am one of those who had not the advantage of hearing this matter threshed out in Committee, and I have not had an opportunity of reading what took place there. Consequently, those who, like myself, take a deep interest in this matter, come here with one hand tied behind us. The Attorney-General says that this going to arbitration is in the nature of a gamble. I think it is a gamble in which the Attorney-General would put the best three-card-trick player to shame, and it is a gamble which is largely on one side. We all wish to see the acquiring authority get the land at a reasonable and proper price, but these costs seem to me to be likely to fall heavily on the vendor, and I do not think he is going to be fairly treated. To show that my suggestion about a three-card trick is not altogether wide of the mark, I wish to call attention to the second paragraph of Sub-section (6), which is as follows:
provided that if the amount of the costs so ordered to be paid by the claimant exceeds the amount of the compensation payable to him, the excess shall be recoverable from him by the acquiring authority summarily as a civil debt.
On the one hand it is impossible for one of the claimants to get costs in excess of the amount awarded. That is to say, the acquiring authority will only get a certain amount of the costs, whereas the selling authority will be in quite a different position. I suggest that that makes it exceedingly hard upon the selling authority, and I sincerely hope that the Attorney-General may see his way to give more power to the arbitrators in this case, so that they may be able to award costs more fairly.

Major Earl WINTERTON: As one who was almost a continuous supporter of the Government on the Committee, I hope the House will not think that I am showing any lack of will towards the Government or the Attorney-General when I say that I am not satisfied with his explanation I agree with what has been said by the Member for one of the Divisions of Liverpool (Mr. Leslie Scott), whose autho-
rity cannot be disputed on this question. I am not satisfied that the Government are dealing fairly with the seller of land under this Sub-section. In dealing with this Amendment, the hon. Member for Newcastle (Major Barnes) said that for the last seventy years public authorities-requiring land had been treated in such a manner by the sellers as to leave a great sense of grievance. I agree that they have been very badly treated, but is that any reason for doing them an injustice under the present Bill? In these discussions we get hon. Members opposite constantly saying in effect that the landlords have always been blackguards in the past and therefore we ought to treat them as criminals in the future. Even if the first assertion is correct, and I do not believe it, is that any reason for giving an unnecessary bias to the acquiring authority in the future? This is an important point which should be carefully considered at this stage. There are far too many people in. this country and in this House who are inclined to do an injustice in order to repair another entirely different injustice which, has been done in the past.

Mr. SCOTT: An injustice done by somebody else.

Earl WINTERTON: Yes, done by some other person. That is not only an absolutely rotten form of argument, but it is also perpetuating the injustice that at present exists under the system we have of acquiring land by public authorities, and. it is perpetuating it by placing the burden upon the shoulders of another person. The-point I wish to put to the Attorney-General is that I am not at all satisfied that he has dealt with this matter fairly. The right hon. Gentleman said that under this sub-Clause the valuer is placed in two positions. There are certain matters which are left to his discretion on the one hand, and on the other hand, there are certain things-which are not left to his discretion. The case I wish to put is where the authority makes an offer and the claimant disputes it, and once his case is decided against the authority, as I understand it, he does not get his costs.

Sir G. HEWART: As the Bill stands that matter is in the discretion of the valuer and in practice the costs would follow. The complaint is that that particular matter is left to the discretion of the valuer, whereas the proposal made is, to leave all matters to the discretion of the valuer.

Earl WINTERTON: Is there not the other case under Sub-section (3), where a claimant has made an unconditional offer and there you do not leave to the valuer any discretion. Where the authority makes an offer and the claimant disputes it, and the costs are given against the authority, I think the claimant should be entitled to his costs. That is my point, and it is no answer to say that some cases are left to the discretion of the valuer and that now my hon. and learned Friend wishes to leave them all to the discretion of the valuer. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and I do not think the Attorney-General has dealt with that point under the Bill. Therefore, unless the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to wave this point, I shall support my hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. HORNE: May I ask the Attorney-General a question? In a case where the amount of the sealed offer is £10,000 and the claimant has agreed under Subsection (3), and made an offer to take £11,000, and the sum of £10,500 is awarded, who pays the costs?

Mr. A. SHAW: I intervene in order to try to answer the point which has been made by my Noble Friend (Earl Winter-ton). The answer is twofold. In the first place, he has already what he and his Friends have been contesting for, namely, the discretion of the valuer in cases not specifically covered.

Earl WINTERTON: May I state that I have not supported my hon. and learned Friend in a single Amendment which he moved in Committee upstairs.

Mr. SHAW: I agree that I ought to have employed a more careful expression, and I should have said the right hon. Gentleman has recently converted the Noble Lord. The first point is that the valuer has the discretion, and the second answer is that there can be no hardship in the position which the Noble Lord imagines, because the ease is covered by the provision in Sub-section (3). He can protect himself quite easily and safeguard his position with respect, to costs by taking the trouble to make a reasonable offer in writing to the acquiring authority. After all, we are not discussing any subsequent Amendment, but the Amendment to insert the words "unless the official valuer otherwise orders" at the beginning of the the Sub-section. What is the position? Speaker after speaker have admitted—I
think the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) admitted—the essential justice of Subsection (1).

Sir F. BANBURY: Certainly, if the same justice is applied to all the parties. I do not hold that it is just to lay down rules for one party to the litigation, and then to say that the other party shall be left to the discretion of the official valuer.

Mr. SHAW: I am much obliged to the right hon. Baronet, but I do not think that he has added anything to what I have said. He admits the essential justice of Sub-section (1) so far as it covers its subject-matter, and he proposes in the forefront to insert these words. Justice, therefore, is to be done unless somebody otherwise orders. It seems to me that the Government have a perfectly irrefutable case, and I trust that the Attorney-General will not give way.

Mr. CAUTLEY: The hon. Member for Newcastle (Major Barnes) rather suggested that in the Standing Committee there was some sort of agreement. The very reverse was the case. My first Amendment, leaving absolute discretion to the official valuer, was defeated by only one vote. My next Amendment, to make what is sauce for the goose sauce also for the gander, and to provide, if the award were less than the offer, that the claimant should pay the costs of both parties, and, if the award were greater than the offer, that the acquiring authority should pay the costs of both parties, was again defeated by only one vote. The Committee was as equally divided on both of these propositions as it could be, and it is now left to the House to decide. I do not think sufficient attention has been paid to one fact. The only case in which for certain the claimant can ever get the costs of the proceedings, however extortionate or unreasonable the acquiring authority has been, is where the claimant offers to take less than his land is worth. Is that a business position in which to put any claimant? Knowing even the capabilities of the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General, I go so far as to say that it is a ridiculous proposition for a business House of Commons to say to a claimant, "You shall not for certain get the costs of these proceedings unless you offer to take for your property less than its fair value"

Sir G. HEWART: Nothing of the kind.

Mr. SHAW: If the claimant offers the correct amount, the same thing follows. It is not necessary that he should offer a less amount.

Sir G. HEWART: He gets the costs if he does not ask too much.

Mr. CAUTLEY: Let me read it—
Where a claimant has made an unconditional offer in writing to accept any sum as compensation and has complied with the provisions of the last preceding Sub-section, and the sum awarded is equal to or exceeds that sum, the official valuer shall order the acquiring authority to bear their own costs and to pay the costs of the claimant incurred after the offer was made.
He is forced into the arbitration, and he has to specify the exact sum or offer to take less. Unless he hits upon the exact sum which the tribunal has to decide or his offer is less than the amount, he can never be certain of getting his costs. That transgresses every rule of equity. He has to make his claim, and that is his offer. Unless he recovers the full amount of his claim, he can never obtain his costs.

Sir G. HEWART: The claimant is not deprived of his costs. In that case he has the benefit, which, if my hon. and learned Friend had his way, he would have in every case, of the discretion of the official valuer.

Mr. CAUTLEY: What would any judge say on reading this Clause if it is passed into law? He would say, "Here is an expressed provision that where the claimant has made an offer and the award is equal to or greater than the offer he is to have his costs." Does not that mean, and would not any arbitrator say, that if he has not made an offer or if the award is less than his offer he is not to have his costs in full?

Sir G. HEWART: I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend wishes to be fair. Sub-section (4) goes on to provide,
Subject as aforesaid the costs of the arbitration under this Act shall be in the discretion of the official valuer who may direct to and by whom and in what manner those costs or any part thereof shall be paid, and the official valuer may in any case disallow the cost of counsel.

Mr. CAUTLEY: That is what I am endeavouring to say. Where, in an Act of Parliament, you have an expressed provision that the costs are to go in one way, and in other cases you leave discretion to the arbitrator to deal with the question of costs, there is an implication that any
judge will invariably follow—that where the condition under which the claimant is to have his costs have not occurred, his discretion must be exercised in another way, and he must not give him full costs, though he may give him some and apportion them. In spite of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, I say that is the view that any judge or official valuer would necessarily take. I maintain that I am right in saying that unless the conditions of Clause 3 are fulfilled and the claimant is put in this position he can never be certain of getting, and never would in practice get, his full costs. It has been suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Shaw) that the claimant could always safeguard himself by making an offer What is the offer that he has to make? It is that he will take less than the value of his property.

Mr. SHAW: He must not ask too much.

Mr. CAUTLEY: He must offer to take less or an equal amount of the value of his property. Is that a reasonable position in which to put anyone? The major issue that comes before the aribitrator is: What is the value of the property? So far as the costs are concerned, there is only one question, namely: Is the amount awarded less or greater than the offer made by the local authority? The arbitration only takes place if that offer is not acceptable to the claimant. If it is a fair value, then the claimant has forced the arbitration and has to pay the expenses. If the offer is not the value of the property, then the arbitration has been forced entirely by the acquiring authority and the whole of the expenses have been incurred by reason of them making an inadequate offer. Those are the two things, and what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The actual Amendment before the House only gives an overriding discretion to the official valuer to try the particular case. I said in introducing it that having laid down primâ facie rules, unless you give some discretion, they will lead to hardship, and if you make the rules as to costs too oppressive and too unfair, you will make the Court that you are setting up hated and detested by everyone who has to go to it, and your Act will fail.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I hope that the Government will stand by their opposition to this Amendment. Everyone knows that at a certain stage the question of costs has
a great deal to do with whether the litigation is to go on or whether there is to be an amicable settlement. This Clause is inserted to put a stop to it, and it will as it stands be an effective means of so doing. Many Members were not here when the Attorney-General made a clear and powerful exposition of the whole matter, and, as I thought, a perfectly unanswerable case.
6.0 P.M.
Bearing in mind the evils which we seek to remedy hon. Members who have been unfortunate enough to engage in litigation will be able to understand what happens. It has been described as something of the nature of the three-card trick. That trick has been far too long played on the public in these matters. All that this Clause proposes to do is to give to the local authorities—to give the purchasing authority power to say, "Look here, we will make you an unconditional offer in writing." The offer goes in, and the object of this provision is to put a stop to those things which we all know are rampant in arbitrations. The Bill says, and the Government say, that this particular proposal will put a stop to these things. It will certainly largely mitigate the evils which we seek to remedy. If the seller thinks the local authority are not playing fairly with him, he has only to put in his unconditional offer, and, if the award exceeds that offer, it carries with it the penalty that the purchasing authority must pay all the claimant's costs. If the award does not reach that offer then he has to pay the penalty for making an unfair claim. I remember in Committee the attitude taken up by the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham, which induced an hon. Member to refer to him in somewhat severe terms.

Earl WINTERTON: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman, but I would not like it go forth that I was inconsistent in the attitude I took up in Committee. On that occasion the Attorney-General promised to make Amendments which he did subsequently bring in, but I think they do not provide for the cases I ventured to put forward.

Sir D. MACLEAN: This is an honest attempt to put down a scandal which has existed in these matters in the past, and I hope that the House will support the Government.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: In Sub-section (1) after the words "authority" ["Costs of the acquiring authority"], insert the words
So far as such costs were."—[Sir G. Hewart.]

Mr. CAUTLEY: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words
but if no such offer is made or if the sum so awarded exceeds the sum offered the official valuer shall order the acquiring authority to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the claimant.
There are two events that may happen. If the local authority makes no offer I venture to say it is clear that it ought to pay the costs of the inquiry which it has brought on by taking this land, and if they do make an offer and the amount of the award is higher then in that case also they ought to pay the costs.

Mr. SCOTT: I am prepared to second the Amendment, but I have first to ask a concession from the Mover, namely, that he shall omit from it the words "If no such offer is made or." Without those words, the Amendment provides us with the true correlative of what is already in Sub-section (1). If, however, my hon. and learned Friend is not prepared to drop those words, then perhaps I had better let somebody else second the Amendment.

Mr. CAUTLEY: The point is that if the authority makes no offer it forces the hearing, and in that case it certainly ought to pay the costs.

Mr. SCOTT: I agree that in some cases the arbitrator would take that view, but there are exceptional cases where it would be wiser, I think, to leave the point to the discretion of the tribunal. Under the circumstances perhaps somebody else had better second the Amendment as I do not quite approve of the, form of it.

Mr. HORNE: I will second the Amendment. I think it very much better to have it provided in the Bill that the proposed purchaser shall make an offer, and if he does not then that he shall pay the whole of the costs. If no offer is made it can only be because the purchasing authority thinks it is going to make a better bargain if it does not put all its cards on the table, and if it does not state what it thinks the value of the property really is. In such a case if it goes into Court, it should do so entirely at its own cost, and not of that of the unhappy vendor, who ought to have his costs because he is compelled to incur them in spite of himself.

Sir G. HEWART: I do not propose to take up the time of the House by repeating what I have already said more than once. My observation on this Amendment is that there are cases which offer a proper field for the exercise of the discretion of the official valuer and I am sure that those who are responsible for this Amendment will agree. No doubt in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred where no offer has been made, or where the sum awarded exceeds the amount offered, the official valuer would order that the acquiring authority should pay the costs of the claimant, but in other cases there might very will be discretion used, and I am not going to deny to the valuer that discretion.

Earl WINTERTON: I would like to put this point to the House. Hon. Members should realise the position in which we stand by the refusal of the Government to accept this Amendment. As I understand it it is left in these cases to the discretion of the official valuer, but we think that that discretion should exist in all cases. The Government and the House refuse to accept that view. I should like to repeat a phrase which we have often heard in the course of this Debate, that "what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" The Government, by refusing to accept the latter part of this Amendment are not dealing fairly as between the two parties. In practically similar cases costs are to be settled by the official valuer according to law. In this case, discretion is to be left to him. That does not seem to be fair dealing, and that is my reason for supporting the Amendment. With regard to what the Leader of the Liberal party said as to my action in Committee, may I say my endeavour there was to support the principles of right and justice as between the acquiring authority and the seller. I believe that the Government on the whole have endeavoured to carry out these principles and where it has done so I have supported it. But here is a particular case in which I do not think the principles are carried out and for that reason I shall support my hon. and learned Friend if he goes to a Division.

Major BARNES: I can assure the Noble Lord, I should be delighted to be converted by him if I considered his arguments or adjectives sufficient for the purpose. He very kindly took some little interest recently in the state of my mind. He suggested that the arguments I had put for-ward were rotten. I do not know whether
that is a quite adequate description of them. If I had not been present in Committee, when he made his onslaught on the hon. Member for East Grinstead, I might have been discouraged. He was then described—

Earl WINTERTON: That has nothing to do with this Amendment.

Major BARNES: The Noble Lord apparently thinks it has nothing to do with the Amendment. He had used such terms as "fatten," and "batten," he has also spoken of my arguments as "rotten." These terms are not arguments. He has suggested that some of us have approached this question of the land with the idea that his ancestors were scoundrels and dishonest criminals. I can assure the Noble Lord that that is very far from being the view which I take on this matter. As far as my respect for any section of Members of this House exist, it exists in a very much larger degree for the Members of the land-owning group to which the Noble Lord belongs, and I may add, in view of the way in which the Noble Lord has come this afternoon to the support of the hon. Member for East Grinstead, it gives me some ground for hoping that at an early date he will rally to ray side with the same vigour and the same eloquence. With regard to the doctrine that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, I am in harmony with it, and so, too, I think is the Attorney-General, who has endeavoured to frame this Bill so that both the goose and the gander may get equal satisfaction.
If hon. Members will read Sub-sections (1) and (3), they will find they are in almost the same terms. There is exactly the same procedure for both the local authority and the claimant, and the result is exactly the same in both cases. If it was really desired that this advertising doctrine should apply, the Bill would have been framed so that it would have dealt with the claimant's position as well as the vendor's. Here is an Amendment put down with no idea of maintaining equal dealing between local authorities and the claimant; it is put down here in order to give the claimant an advantage which the local authority will not possess if the Bill is accepted. What happened in Committee? As the Bill was first introduced, the claimant, as the Attorney-General pointed out, had the protection of the law as it stood. I believe that in Committee the Attorney-General
expressed the opinion that it was not necessary to incorporate Sub-section (3) as it stands in the Bill, but he put it in to satisfy hon. Members who were taking objection to the Bill as it stood. Without that Sub-section the claimant would have had the protection of the Land Clauses Acts. However, that Sub-section was put in. As the Bill now stands there is perfectly equal treatment between both the local authority and the claimant. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] There is no desire on my part, I can assure the Noble Lord and

those who think with him, or, I believe, in any part of the House, to weight the scales against either the local authority or the claimant. All that we desire is fair and equal dealing. We believe that is attained under the Bill. We do not think it will be attained if the Amendment is adopted, and we hope that the Attorney-General will adhere to his decision.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 38; Noes, 212.

Division No. 46.]
AYES.
[6.20 p.m.


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.
Hennessy, Major G.
Thomas, Sir R. (Wrexham, Denb.)


Benn, Com. Ian Hamilton (G'nwich)
Hunter, Gen. Sir A. (Lancaster)
Thomas-Stanford, Charles


Bennett, T. J.
Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)
Townley, Maximillian G.


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Marriott, John Arthur R.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Boles, Lieut.-Col. D. F.
Murray, Major C. D. (Edinburgh, S.)
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Bowles, Col. H. F.
Nicholson, W. (Petersfield)
Willoughby, Lt.-Col. Hon. Claud


Brassey, H. L. C.
Nield, Sir Herbert
Wilson, Capt. A. Stanley (Hold'ness)


Burdon, Col. Rowland
Ratcliffe, Henry Butler
Wilson, Col. M. (Richmond, Yorks.)


Burn, Colonel C. R. (Torquay)
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Winterton, Major Earl


Coats, Sir Stuart
Roundell, Lieutenant-Colonel R. F.
Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)


Colfox, Major W. P.
Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)



Courthope, Major George Loyd
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.


FitzRoy, Capt. Hon. Edward A.
Sprot, Cot. Sir Alexander
Cautley and Mr. Horne.


Gretton, Col. John
Terrell, G. (Chippenham, wilts.)



NOES.


Ainsworth, Capt. C.
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hancock, John George


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. Martin
Coote, Colin R, (Isle of Ely)
Haslam, Lewis


Arnold, Sydney
Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Hayward, Major Evan


Bagley, Captain E. A.
Crooks, Rt. Hon. William
Henderson, Major V. L.


Baldwin, Stanley
Curzon, Commander Viscount
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirk'dy)
Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E.


Banner, Sir J. S. Harmood-
Davidson, Major-Gen. Sir John H.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Sir Samuel J. G.


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)
Hogge, J. M.


Barnston, Major Harry
Davies, Sir D. S. (Denbigh)
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy


Barrand, A. R.
Davies, T. (Cirencester)
Holmes, J. S.


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Dawes, J. A.
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Dewhurst, Lieut.-Com, H.
Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Dockrell, Sir M.
Hopkinson, Dr. E. (Clayton)


Bigland, Alfred
Doyle, N. Grattan
Horne, Sir Robert (Hillhead)


Birchall, Major J. D.
Duncannon, Viscount
Houston, Robert Paterson


Biades, Sir George R.
Edge, Captain William
Hughes, Spencer Leigh


Blair, Major Reginald
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Hume-Williams, Sir Wm. Ellis


Bowerman, Right Hon. C. W.
Edwards, J. H. (Glam., Neath)
Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G.


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Elliot, Capt. W. E. (Lanark)
Hurst, Major G. B.


Breese, Major C. E.
Entwistle, Major C. F.
Jephcott, A. R.


Briant, F.
Eyres-Monsell, Commander
Jesson, C.


Bridgeman, William Clive
Falcon, Captain M.
Jodrell, N. P.


Briggs, Harold
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Johnstone, J.


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Fell, Sir Arthur
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)


Bromfield, W.
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)


Bruton, Sir J.
Foxcroft, Captain C.
Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)


Buchanan, Lieut.-Col. A. L. H.
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Joynson-Hicks, William


Buckley, Lt.-Col. A.
Galbraith, Samuel
Kellaway, Frederick George


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Gardiner, J. (Perth)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander


Butcher, Sir J. G.
Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Basingstoke)
Law, A. J. (Rochdale)


Cairns, John
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ. Wales)


Campbell, J. G. D.
Gilbert, James Daniel
Loseby, Captain C. E.


Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Lowe, Sir F. W.


Carr, W. T.
Glanville, Harold James
Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N)


Carter, R. A. D. (Manchester)
Glyn, Major R.
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. J. M. (Stirling)


Casey, T. W.
Graham, W. (Edinburgh)
M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)


Cayzer, Major H. R.
Green, J. F. (Leicester)
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Greenwood, Col. Sir Hamar
Macleod, John Mackintosh


Chilcott, Lieut.-Com. H. W. S.
Greig, Colonel James William
M'Micking, Major Gilbert


Child, Brig.-Gen. Sir Hill
Griggs, Sir Peter
Malone, Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.)


Clay, Capt. H. H. Spender
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Malone, Major P. (Tottenham, S.)


Clough, R.
Guest, Maj. Hon O. (Leic, Loughboro')
Martin, A. E.


Clyde, James Avon
Gwynne, R. S.
Mason, Robert


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hallwood, A.
Mildmay, Col. Rt. Hon. Francis B.


Colvin, Brigadier-General R. B.
Hamilton, Major C. G. C. (Altrincham)
Mitchell, William Lane-


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. C. T.
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.
Tickler, Thomas George


Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Rees, Captain J. Tudor (Barnstaple)
Tryon, Major George Clement


Morrison, H. (Salisbury)
Remer, J. B.
Vickers, D.


Mosley, Oswald
Richardson, R. (Haughton)
Waddington, R.


Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Walker, Col. William Hall


Murchison, C. K.
Rodger, A. K.
Wallace, J.


Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles)
Rowlands, James
Walton, Sir Joseph (Barnsley)


Murray, Hon. G. (St. Rollox)
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)
Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.


Murray, John (Leeds, W.)
Samuel, A. M. (Farnham, Surrey)
Wardle, George J.


Murray, William (Dumfries)
Samuels, Rt. Hon. A. W. (Dublin Univ.)
Waring, Major Walter


Nall, Major Joseph
Scott, A. M. (Glas., Bridgeton)
Warren, Sir Alfred H.


Neal, Arthur
Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)
Waterson, A. E.


Newbould, A. E.
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W.)
White, Charles F. (Derby, W.)


Newman, Major J (Finchley, Mddx.)
Simm, Col. M. T.
White, Col. G, D. (Southport)


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)
Smith, Capt. A. (Nelson and Colne)
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Oman, C. W. C.
Stanley, Colonel Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Palmer, Brig.-Gen. G. (Westbury)
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.
Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)


Parker, James
Stewart, Gershom
Wilson, Col. Leslie (Reading)


Parry, Major Thomas Henry
Strauss, Edward Anthony
Winfrey, Sir Richard


Perring, William George
Sugden, W. H.
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge and Hyde)


Philipps, Sir O. C. (Chester)
Surtees, Brig.-Gen. H. C.
Wood, Major Mackenzie (Aberdeen, C.)


Pinkham, Lieutenant-Colonel Charles
Swan, J. E. C.
Yate, Colonel Charles Edward


Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Sykes, Col Sir A. J. (Knutsford)
Younger, Sir George


Prescott, Major W. H.
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)



Pulley, Charles Thornton
Thomas, Brig-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Col.


Raeburn, Sir William
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Sanders and Mr. Pratt


Raper, A. Baldwin
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

Mr. CAUTLEY: I beg to move, to leave out the words
If the official valuer is satisfied that a claimant has failed to deliver to the acquiring authority a notice in writing of the amount claimed by him giving sufficient particulars and in sufficient time to enable the acquiring authority to make a proper offer the foregoing provisions of this Section shall apply as if an unconditional offer had been made by the acquiring authority at the time when, in the opinion of the official valuer, sufficient particulars should have been furnished and the claimant had been awarded a sum not exceeding the amount of such offer.
I move this in the hope that I may induce the Attorney-General to mitigate the very extreme penalty. The effect of the lines to be omitted is that if the particulars delivered by the claimant are insufficient he has to pay the whole costs of the proceedings, whatever the award, however unreasonable the acquiring authority may be, or however oppressive it may have been, and there is no power of mitigating the penalty. The last Clause having been passed, and the House having refused to give any discretion of any sort to the arbitrator except in the cases specified, and having laid down the Clause in a mandatory manner, he has no power except to Bay that the cost of the whole proceedings shall be incurred by the claimant, possibly because of the omission of some small detail either of his expert witness or his solicitor, which is an extremely onerous penalty. I appeal to the Attorney-General to insert some words to mitigate what may be a great injustice.

Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir G. HEWART: I am sure the House appreciates the purpose of this Clause.
Where grave difficulty is experienced in the way of acquiring authorities, it arises from the fact that they cannot get adequate particulars from the claimant, and it is therefore, in the view of those who are responsible for the Bill, essential that sufficient particulars in proper time should be delivered to enable the acquiring authority to make its unconditional offer in writing. If those particulars are not delivered, it is quite obvious that some penalty must be assigned for the non-delivery. What more appropriate penalty could there be than to say to the claimant, We must assume that that was done which the failure to deliver particulars has prevented. We must assume that an unconditional offer of a suitable kind has been made. The hon. and learned Gentleman said he proposes to secure some mitigation of the penalty, but he did not suggest what mitigated penalty would suffice.

Mr. CAUTLEY: The discretion of the arbitrator to order the particulars to be given.

Sir G. HEWART: The hon. Member alternates in the most baffling manner between moments when he reposes everything in the discretion of the arbitrator and moments when he will repose nothing. I should have thought the ideal penalty was that proposed by the Bill.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: In Sub-section (3), after the word "claimant" ["and to pay the costs of the claimant"], insert the words
so far as such costs were."—[Sir G. Hewart.]

Mr. SCOTT: Mr. Speaker, you asked my hon. Friend (Mr. Cautley) whether he moved his Amendment on line 14. There is another in his name two lines lower, to leave out Sub-section (3).

Mr. CAUTLEY: When I said I did not move, I was referring to line 14.

Mr. SPEAKER: By virtue of the power which the Standing Orders confer upon me, I must exercise my privilege in this matter, and pass on. I must also ask the hon. Member to presume that he will not move his next Amendment—to leave out the words "subject as aforesaid."

Sir G. HEWART: I beg to move, in Sub-section (6), to leave out the words
Provided that if the amount of the costs so ordered to be paid by the claimant exceeds the amount of the compensation payable to him, the excess
and to insert instead thereof the words
(7) Without prejudice to any other method of recovery, the amount of costs ordered to be paid by a claimant, or such part thereof as is not covered by such deduction as aforesaid.
The alteration is one of form and not of substance. It would seem more appropriate to make this proposal in the form of a separate Sub-section than in the form of a proviso to Sub-section (6).

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 6.—(Finality of Award and Statement of Special Cases.)

(1) The decision of an official valuer upon any question of fact, shall be final and binding on the parties, and the persons claiming under them respectively, but the official valuer may, and shall, if the High Court so directs, state at any case of the proceedings, in the form of a special case for the opinion of the High Court, any question of law arising in the course of the proceedings, and may state his award as to the whole or part thereof in the form of a special case for the opinion of the High Court.

(2) The decision of the High Court upon any case so stated shall be final and conclusive, and shall not be subject to appeal to any other Court.

Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "shall" ["but the official valuer may, and shall"] to insert the words
upon reasonable and proper request made by one of the parties, or.
I believe in every case, except in some small County Court cases under £2, there is an appeal to the High Court. Why should this be an exception? We are going to deal with vast amounts of property, and we are going to put in valuers, who may be excellent men but
who, after all, have not been trained in the Law Courts and have not had the experience the judges have had, and we are going to say there is not to be an appeal from their decision upon a reasonable case being shown by one of the parties. The Attorney-General, I think, will reply that he cannot accept the Amendment because his object is to diminish costs as much as possible.

Sir G. HEWART: indicated dissent.

Sir F. BANBURY: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is going to accept the Amendment?

Sir G. HEWART: I entertain an even bolder hope. It is to persuade the right hon. Baronet that his proposal is already in the Bill.

Sir F. BANBURY: I am very glad to learn that it is, but I cannot see it.

Sir G. HEWART: In Sub-section (l) of this Clause there is a two-fold condition for a statement of a case. First of all the official valuer may state, at any stage of the proceedings, in the form of a special case for the opinion of the High Court, any question of law arising in the course of the proceedings. So that whenever the official valuer thinks it is reasonable and proper to state a case he may state it. Secondly, supposing he does not think so, he shall, if the High Court so directs, state a case. Suppose we were to insert the right hon. Baronet's words and say "on reasonable and proper request," someone would have to decide whether the request was reasonable and proper. If the arbitrator is to decide it, that is already in the word "may." If he decides it wrongly it goes to the High Court. The Bill already so provides.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. CAUTLEY: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to insert the words
except by leave of the High Court.
The Clause provides that the decision of the valuer shall be final except on a question of law, when he can state a case which is to go to the High Court. Then there is to be no further appeal. I think there ought to be a right of further appeal if the Court before whom the case comes think there is a proper case for appeal. This Bill deals with cases that will involve very large sums of money, and it also deals with cases involving smaller sums of money, but still of vital importance to the
owner of the property that is being taken. I desire to give in such cases the constitutional right of every subject who is aggrieved to pursue the remedy which is given by our system of jurisprudence. It may be thought that the Courts of Appeal ought to be diminished, and there may be something in that, but so long as these Courts continue nobody ought to be deprived of his constitutional right to resort to those Courts. It seems a little absurd that a man who starts an action in the County Court over a small matter involving ten, twenty, or fifty pounds, may go from one Court to another by leave of the Courts right up to the House of Lords. We know what enormous advantages the right of appeal has been in the settlement of difficult questions of law which have arisen under various Acts passed by this House. I might mention the Workmen's Compensation Act. The whole policy and principle of that Act were laid down in a series of decisions by the House of Lords, which quite upset the previous decisions of the judges of the Lower Courts. Seeing that the cases that will come before the valuers will involve large sums of money, I submit that in every case of substance involving a question of law, which as a rule affects some broad principle, and not merely the particular case before the Court, it would be an advantage to have an authoritative decision by the higher Court. I limit the provision to the extent that there should only be this right to go to the Higher Court if the Court which has heard the case considers that the matter is one of such importance that the point of law ought to be decided by a higher tribunal. The proposal is a reasonable one, and a constitutional one, and ought to be accepted.

Sir J. BUTCHER: I think this Amendment ought to be accepted, because in these cases the appeal is to be made, not because the parties think proper, but because the Court thinks proper. Many cases come before the Court where there is a conflict of judicial opinion. The Court, perhaps, is undecided itself, and the disagreeable duty falls upon it of deciding which of the former decisions in dispute it right. In many cases it must be within the Attorney-General's knowledge that the Court is only too glad of the opportunity of getting the matter decided by a higher tribunal. I agree with the view which, I understand, animates those who originated this Bill—that there should be
no unnecessary cost. But inasmuch as under this Bill you will have land of enormous value transferred from one owner to someone else, and in many cases important questions of law will arise on which hundreds of thousands of pounds or less sums will be involved, it will be only reasonable that where the Court is satisfied that it is a matter which ought to be taken to the higher tribunal, the opinion of that higher tribunal should be taken. Otherwise, a question of law may arise and the Court may say, "Here is a conflict of opinion upon which I should like to have the guidance of a higher tribunal." But the Attorney-General says to the Court: "No; you shall not have the guidance of the higher Court. No one shall have that guidance. The matter must be left where it is." Perhaps in confusion. Inasmuch as this provision in the Amendment will not involve increased cost unnecessarily, and will not involve delay, but will, perhaps, facilitate the acquisition of land, I hope it will be accepted.

Sir G. HEWART: As a lawyer, if there is one thing more than another that appeals to me, besides the question of costs, which we have been discussing earlier this afternoon, it is the subject of appeals, which we are discussing now. I suppose, naturally, one would desire that there should be the greatest possible number of appeals and the greatest possible number of court, but the object of this Bill is to prevent expense and delay and to secure, in the words of the ancient maxim, a speedy end to litigation. A parallel has been suggested between the Workmen's Compensation Act and this Bill, but I am quite sure that my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Cautley), who suggested that comparison, is well aware that under the Workmen's Compensation Act there is an immense variety and an immense complexity of legal problems. This Bill deals with one question and one question only. It deals with the ascertainment of compensation. The legal questions which are likely to arise in such matters are not comparable in point of number or in point of complexity to the other questions. As the Bill now stands, what is it that is open upon questions of law? The arbitrator may and in a proper case might cite a case for the opinion of the High Court. If that case is stated the arbitrator has the advantage of a decision which may be of one of His Majesty's judges or it
may be of more. That is as far as the appeal goes. It is now proposed that there should be a further right of appeal.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Not a right, only an appeal if the Court thinks proper.

Sir G. HEWART: A right of appeal by leave of the High Court. My hon. and learned Friends have experience in these matters, and I ask them to put themselves into the shoes of the learned judge who has been dealing with the question of law raised by a special case by the arbitrator either upon his own motion or because he has been so ordered by the High Court. As soon as it is found that there is a real question of law to consider and that there will be an appeal, is it to be expected that the learned judge would say no? The normal course, I think, would be for him to say, "Yes. If there is, as there is, a real question of law to consider, and as there is a desire to appeal, I shall be quite willing to have my opinion reviewed by another Court." That would be the natural disposition. Therefore, to say that there is not to be any further appeal, "except by leave of the High Court," is really to open the door to the Appeal Court. The words of this Amendment would go further. It would not be that there would be merely an appeal to the Court of Appeal by leave of the High Court, because if you go to the Court of Appeal and if you satisfy the Court of Appeal that there is a real question of law still to be considered, they would say, "By all means go to the House of Lords." It is that kind of multiplicity of procedure which the Clause, as it is framed, is designed to prevent, but if this Amendment, innocent as it looks upon the face of it, were accepted, the door would be open to that kind of continuous litigation of which we have had sad experience during the last few generations.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 7.—(Effect of Act on Existing Enactments.)

(1) The provisions of the Actor Order by which the land is authorised to be acquired, or of any Act incorporated therewith, shall in relation to the matters dealt with in this Act, have effect subject to this Act, and so far as inconsistent with this Act those provisions shall cease to have or shall not have effect:

Provided that nothing in this Act relating to the rules for assessing compensation shall affect any special provisions as to the assessment of the value of land acquired for the purposes of Part I. or Part II. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, or under the Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1916, and
contained in those Acts respectively, or any Act amending those Acts, if and so far as the provisions in those Acts are inconsistent with the-rules under this Act and the provisions of the Second Schedule to the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, as amended by any subsequent enactment (except paragraphs (4), (5), (29), and (31) thereof) shall apply to an official valuer as they apply to an arbitrator appointed under that Schedule, and an official valuer may exercise all the powers conferred by those provisions as such arbitrator.

(2) The provisions of this Act shall apply to the determination of the amount of rent or compensation payable in respect of land authorised to be hired compulsorily under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, or any Act amending that Act, and any matter required thereby to be determined by a valuer appointed by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries shall be determined by an official vauler in accordance with this Act.

Mr. RAWLINSON: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words
Provided that nothing in this Act shall apply to any land acquired before the date of this Act by a railway, canal, dock, water, gas, electricity or other public company.
In certain cases an electric, gas, or dock company may have acquired land recently, and the object of the Amendment is that in cases of recently acquired land by undertakings of this sort, which land has been acquired under the old system, they should be exempt, for a time at any rate, from the operations of this Act. The Amendment as it is drawn I admit goes somewhat far, and all that I seriously press the Government to do is to give some relief. If necessary, they might limit it to land acquired during the last two, three, four, or five years. The principle I am submitting is that where a company have had to acquire land quite recently under the old terms, this Act should not apply to them for a considerable period; otherwise they may have had to secure land for a particular purpose and to pay a high price for it, and the land may be taken from them under the totally different system set up by this Act.

Sir F. BANBURY: I have pleasure in seconding the Amendment, and though I quite agree with the cogency of the reasons advanced, I think there is a greater reason why the Amendment should be accepted. The hon. and learned Member has pointed out that companies which have acquired land during the last few years have acquired it under different regulations than those laid down in this Bill, and they may be adversely affected if they are required to resell the land
under the regulations enforced under this Bill. There is another aspect. In the majority of cases these particular undertakings could not have acquired the land unless they had come to Parliament and obtained power, and having acquired the land by Act of Parliament—and Parliament would not have given them power to acquire the land unless it had been reasonable and necessary that they should acquire it for their undertakings—it does seem very wrong to take that land away from them.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Might I ask my right hon. Friend what he means by the words "or other public company"?

7.0 P.M.

Sir F. BANBURY: This not my Amendment. Therefore I do not know what the words are meant to refer to I should think the Amendment would be better if the words were left out. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that his proper course is to move an Amendment to leave out those words.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: What will be the effect of this Amendment? Does it mean that if a Government Department finds it necessary to acquire land which has already been acquired by a railway, canal, dock or gas company, it will be necessary for the Government Department to pay to that company the price which that company has originally paid for the land, because, if so, that is a very material point, and I should have some explanation from the Mover of the Amendment on that point before I could agree to the Amendment.

Mr. RAWLINSON: The meaning of the words "public company" in that sense is that where a company have taken land under a statutory power under the old system, then the old system shall apply to that company for, at all events, a certain number of years. They had to pay under the old Lands Clauses Acts, and they should be paid not necessarily the same sum, but on the same lines. Otherwise they would get much less favourable terms.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Speaking entirely as a layman, it seems to me that the Amendment is much too sweeping, that a company might invest in land, and that this Amendment might apply to such land does not apply only to land taken specially for the business or work of the company.

Sir G. HEWART: I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend who proposed this Amendment appreciates that it is very wide indeed. He used the word "recent." How long ago is "recent"? That Amend-mend refers to any land acquired. That is to say, any land, whether it be acquired by ordinary means or by the exercise of compulsory powers. Suppose that the word "recent" is inserted, and that the word "compulsory" is inserted. It would still be left that the Act was not to apply to any land recently acquired under compulsory powers before the date of this Act. I would ask my hon. and learned Friend to project himself in imagination, say thirty years hence, when in the year 1949 this Act having been found to be so excellent will still be in full force and effect. The force of this Amendment would be limited to land compulsorily acquired at some time before May or June, 1919. The difficulty with which it is proposed to deal is open to at least two observations. In the first place, however hard it might be in the case Which my hon. and learned Friend supposes, if it applies to a public company it might be no less hard upon a private individual who had acquired land before the passing of this Act.

Mr. RAWLINSON: What I mean is that where a public company were taking land, say last year, they have had to pay for it at a much higher rate than they would have to pay if it were taken under this particular Bill. It was because they had to come under compulsory powers they could only go under the Lands Clauses Acts, and therefore they paid a very much larger sum than if it were taken under this Bill. Therefore, it can only apply to public companies.

Sir G. HEWART: That answer limits the application of the Amendment to the compulsory acquisition of land.

Mr. RAWLINSON: The only way you can put your compulsory powers into force is under the Lands Clauses Acts, and you have to pay higher for it when you purchase by agreement, even though you do not take the matter into Court. The theory of this Bill is that by having this cheaper way of getting land you can buy your land by agreement.

Sir G. HEWART: Whatever the force of that observation, exactly the same kind of argument would carry exactly the same kind of weight in the case of a private proprietor. The cases which my hon. and
learned Friend contemplates are very unlikely to arise for at least two reasons. A public authority or a Government Department acquiring compulsorily, will be acquiring either under special powers or under general powers. If under special powers the ease referred to would be highly improbable. If under general powers, it would be because the matter was so important that it was thought that there should be general powers to acquire land, and whatever infinitesimal risk there may be is a risk which it appears to me a company may just as much be asked to face as an individual.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: Leave out the word "as" ["as such arbitrator"], and insert instead thereof the word "on."—[Sir G. Hewart.]

CLAUSE 8.—(Saving of Power to Refer to Arbitrator by Agreement.)

Nothing in this Act shall prevent, if the parties so agree, the reference of any question as to disputed compensation to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or to an arbitrator agreed on between the parties:

Provided that if any question is so referred the provisions of this Act, so far as they are not inconsistent, shall apply as if the arbitrator was an official valuer.

Amendments made: After the word "compensation," insert the words,
or apportionment of rent.

After the word "parties," insert the words,
(2) Where a question is so referred to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue the Commissioners shall not proceed by arbitration, but shall cause an assessment to be made in accordance with the rules for the assessment of compensation under this Act, and the following provisions shall have effect:

(a) The parties shall comply with any direction or requirements as to the furnishing of information (whether orally or in writing), and the production of documents and otherwise;
(b) Any officer of the Commissioners appointed for the purpose shall be entitled to enter on and inspect any land which is subject to the reference to them;
(c) The Commissioners, if either party so de sires within such time as the Commissioners may allow, shall give the parties an opportunity of being heard before such officer of the valuation office of the Com missioners as the Commissioners may appoint for the purpose;
(d) The assessment when made shall be published to the parties and take effect as if it were an award of an official valuer under this Act;
(e) If either party refuses or neglects to comply with any direction or requirement of the Commissioners, the Commissioners may
446
decline to proceed with the matter, and in that case the question shall be referred to an official valuer as if there had been no reference to the Commissioners, and the official valuer when awarding costs shall take into consideration any report of the Commissioners as to the refusal or neglect which rendered such a reference to him necessary.

Leave out the words
provided that if any question is so referred
and insert instead thereof the words
(3) Where a question is so referred to an arbitrator.

Leave out the words
So far as they are not inconsistent
and insert instead thereof the words
except Sections one and four and so much of Section three as requires proceedings to be in public, and as provides for the fixing of fees."—[Sir G. Hewart.]

Mr. SCOTT: I beg to move, at the end, to add the words
() Either party to a claim for compensation may require the Commissioners for Inland Revenue to assess the value of the land in respect of which the claim arises, and a copy of any such assessment shall be sent forthwith by the Commissioners to the other party, and such assessment shall be admissible in evidence of that value in proceedings before the official valuer, and the servant of the Commissioners who made the valuation shall attend if required for cross-examination before the official valuer.
This Amendment is designed to carry out a suggestion which I indicated yesterday as an alternative to an Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I rather hope from what the Attorney-General said yesterday that the Government may see their way to accept an Amendment on these lines. Its object is to bring the Inland Revenue Department as much as possible into touch with questions on the acquisition of land for the various purposes which I mentioned in my remarks to the House yesterday, namely, that the basis of valuation for taxation and compensation on acquisition should be, as far as possible, the same, that the Inland Revenue Department should be utilised, and, further, that by utilising it we should make it as efficient as possible. The evidence given before my Committee was very striking as to the satisfactory character of valuations made by the Inland Revenue Department during the last two or three years. It is very desirable, therefore, that, as far as possible, we should utilise their machinery. The primary object of this Amendment is to promote a settlement of these compensation cases by agreement. The idea is, in reference to
the arbitration before the official valuers, particularly in small cases where the payment of a fee to a surveyor is impossible, that there should be simple machinery which will enable a person to say to the Government, "Give me a valuation of my land." He can get it for a very small fee, and being given the valuation in most cases he would be satisfied with it, the purchasing party would be satisfied, and there would be agreement. I quite agree that the valuation of the land in many cases is only one component in the assessment of compensation. Injurious effect, trade disturbance, and so on are not included, but if you can get this as a basic factor it will help. There is only one more word I wish to say, and that is that the Amendment provides that either party to the claim for compensation may require the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to assess the value of the land in respect of which the claim arises, and a copy of any such assessment shall be sent forthwith by the Commissioners to the other party, and such assessment shall toe admissible in evidence. That is very important. In order to make it perfectly clear that the valuation shall not be conclusive, and that if founded on mistakes there may be cross-examination upon it, I provide that the servant of the Commissioners who made the valuation shall attend, if required, for cross-examination before the official valuer.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Why does the hon. and learned member limit the function of the servant of the Commissioners appearing to cross-examination only?

Mr. SCOTT: Because I did not think it right that a public official should be made the witness of a party. I think he ought to stand quite independent (between the two parties, not to be examined in chief by one and cross-examined by the other or vice versa, but to be open to be asked questions by either party or by the Court. That suggestion in the Amendment is based upon the recommendation of my Committee. In two cases my Committee advised that this procedure should be adopted, and regarded it as essential that the valuer should attend as a witness when wanted and be open to cross-examination by both parties before the official valuer. I venture to think that if any Members consider that the official valuers are incompetent or inefficient and their valuations bad there is no more satisfactory tonic that
could be administered than having to appear and have questions asked, and then to see the difference between the valuation department and the valuations made by the official valuer as the result of the inquiry.

Sir R. WINFREY: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir G. HEWART: I welcome the Amendment and subject to two alterations, one by way of addition and the other by way of subtraction, I shall be prepared to accept it. The first is that after the word "and" ["the other party and such assessment"] the words "a certified copy of" shall be inserted, so that it will read
and a certified copy of such assessment shall be admissible in evidence of that value in proceedings before the official valuer.
I understand that my hon. and learned Friend for the Exchange Division of Liverpool agrees to that alteration. My second proposal is to delete the words at the end "and the servant of the Commissioner who made the valuation shall attend if required for cross-examination before the official valuer." There are difficulties in the way of the course proposed in the Amendment. If the Commissioners are to exercise the function of assessing the value of the land they are-really to be in a quasi-judicial position, and it is difficult and inconvenient that they or the particular individual responsible for the assessment should be called and cross-examined. My learned Friend perceives that difficulty when he uses the word "cross-examine." The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir D. Maclean) asked a question upon it. Undoubtedly the Mover of the Amendment realises the difficulty of making the Commissioners or their representatives the witnesses of a, particular party. I venture to think it is no less objectionable that those persons charged with these duties, and having exercised them, should be called for cross-examination by the one side or the other or by both, before another tribunal which is charged with the task of determining the value. Part of the argument of my learned Friend in favour of that particular course depended upon this, that in those circumstances the Commissioners of Inland Revenue would have the opportunity of contrasting and comparing the valuation at which they arrive with the valuation at which ultimately the official valuer arrives. That opportunity will be
no less open to them, although neither they nor their representatives are called before the official valuer for cross examination.

Mr. SCOTT: I am prepared to accept the alteration suggested by the Attorney-General, if the House will allow me.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment made: After the word "and" ["and such assessment"], insert the words
certified copy of."—[Sir G. Hewart.]

Further Amendment to the proposed Amendment moved: Leave out the words
and the servant of the Commissioners who made the valuation shall attend if required for cross-examination before the official valuer."—[Sir G. Hewart.]

Sir R. ADKINS: I would like to ask whether the reason in favour of those words which my learned Friend has cited would not be met by saying "if required by the official valuer"? I see the objection to servants of the Commissioners being called to be cross-examined by either party, but if the official valuer, having before him a certified copy of the valuation of the Commissioners, felt that it would assist him to ask questions of the person responsible for it, is there any objection to giving him that power, that is, if required by the official valuer himself? The object we all have is the same—that of preventing misunderstanding, of clearing up difficulties, and of getting the widest possible public sanction of what is done.

Mr. RAWLINSON: This is a most extraordinarily wide change to make in a Bill on a manuscript Amendment.

Mr. SCOTT: It is not a manuscript Amendment

Mr. RAWLINSON: It is a manuscript Amendment. The hon. Member for the Exchange Division moved his Amendment, and since then the Government have moved, on a manuscript Amendment, to omit a very vital part of that Amendment. It makes a most extraordinary change in the procedure of the Bill. You are giving power to either party to ask for valuation by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. There is no one to appear before the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, no one before the valuer, there is no power for the claimant to put his, case forward, and they are to send down a man behind the backs of either party without hearing any evidence or points in favour of the claimant or the person taking the
land, and he is to draw up a statement as to the value of the land, and that is to be put in without cross-examination of any kind or any test by the parties to litigation. The Mover of the Amendment undoubtedly saw how unjust such a state of affairs would be, and he proposed that the persons who drew up the valuation could be cross-examined to see whether they really knew the facts of the case at all. That proposal the Government have taken up, I gather. If that is so, surely it is an absolutely unknown piece of legislation to put into a Bill that you are to have a document which must carry great weight with any valuer, a document which goes with all the impress of Government upon it to a Government official, and you are to have no power to see the man or to ask a single question, and that document is to be put in without a single word from the claimant. I most strongly urge the Government that they should hesitate before making such a change.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I am sorry I cannot agree with the last speaker, that this Amendment makes such a drastic and sweeping change in the Bill as he anticipates. It would be ungracious on my part if I did not say that I regard the Amendment as a substantial one which improves the Bill. I, therefore, extend my thanks to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill for the concession he has made.

Colonel GREIG: We are making a very serious deviation from the proposals of the Bill. Under Clause 8 there is power to enable the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to give a final decision. The result of this proposal will be that in every case where compensation arises the people concerned will immediately at the public expense apply for a valuation to a public authority which may be the tribunal to make the assessment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.

Proposed words, as amended, there inserted in the Bill.

CLAUSE 9.—(Application to Scotland and Ireland.)

(1) This Act shall apply to Scotland subject to the following modification:

(a) The provisions of this Act other than the provisions of the Section thereof relating to Rules for the assessment of compensation, shall apply to the determination of any question which, under Sub-section (11) of Section seven or Section seventeen of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act, 1911, is referred to arbitration, as if the
451
Board of Agriculture for Scotland were the acquiring authority, and as if in the said Sub-section (11) there were substituted for the Lord Ordinary on the Bills such person as may be prescribed by Rules made by the Reference Committee for Scotland; and the provisions of that Act, including the Second Schedule to the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1908, as thereby applied, shall in relation to such determination have effect subject to the aforesaid provisions of this Act:
(b) "High Court" means Court of Session; "arbitrator" means arbiter, and "easement" means servitude.

(2) This Act shall apply to Ireland subject to the following modification:

Nothing in this Act shall affect the determination of the price or compensation to be paid on the compulsory acquisition of land by the Irish Land Commission or Congested Districts Board for Ireland under any statute or the special provisions contained in the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 18S5, and the enactments amending the same, with respect to the jurisdiction of the Irish Land Commission in cases where land is taken compulsorily under those provisions for a term of years.

Mr. HOGGE: I beg to move, in Subsection (1, a), to leave out the words
other than the provisions of the Section thereof relating to Rules for the assessment of compensation,
This Clause deals with the application of this Bill to Scotland and to Ireland, and particularly as to the Small Landowners (Scotland) Act, 1911. That Act sought to constitute new small holdings in Scotland without purchase, and the smallholders created under that Act became tenants of the landlords with security of tenure at judicial rents. The object of the Act was to give all the advantages of occupying ownership to the smallholder in Scotland without purchase of the land. Certain provisions were introduced into that Act in order to deal with the subject of compensation. The idea apparently was then prevalent that the creation in Scotland of colonies of smallholders was going to depreciate the letting value of the estates out of which those holdings were taken. The object of my Amendment is to deal with that situation, because, obviously, the basis of compensation should not be more favourable to the landlord when tenants are created than when the estate itself is bought outright. This Amendment provides that in respect of procedure, and in regard to the rules for assessing compensation the provisions of this Bill shall be substituted for the provisions of the Small Landowners Act, and the excision of the words proposed would substitute that basis for the basis which at present obtains' under the Small Landowners Act.
As Scottish Members in the House know, the operation of that Act in Scotland has been brought to an absolute standstill mainly on account of the exorbitant allowances for compensation which have been granted owing to the judicial interpretation of Sub-section (11) of Section 7 of that Act. That Sub-section provides, among other matters,
Where the Land Court are of opinion that damage or injury will be done to the letting value of the land to be occupied by a new holder or new holders, or of any farm of which such land forms part, or to any tenant, in respect that the land forms part of the whole of his tenancy, or to any landlord either in respect of an obligation to take over sheep stock at a valuation, or in respect of any depreciation in the value of the estate of which the land forms part, in consequence of and directly attributable to the constitution of the new holding or holdings as proposed, they shall require the Board in the event of the scheme being proceeded with to pay compensation to such amount as the Land Court, after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, and if they so desire of leading evidence in the matter.
That matter was brought to a head in Scotland by the famous Lindean case in the year 1914. That was a case where a scheme of small holdings was carried out by the Scottish Board of Agriculture, and the compensation given exceeded the value of the entire estate out of which the holdings were carved. That judicial interpretation practically created a deadlock, which was, of course, further emphasised by the War, and the administration of the Act became practically a dead letter. In this Bill the House is called upon to extinguish as far as possible indirect claims, variously defined as injurious affection, in order that the public authority should be able to buy the land at a much less impossible price. I suggest that the logical course to pursue is to give the same conditions where the land is only leased as well as where it is bought, and that under existing conditions that is a course which deserves some rather special consideration. Land is at present being sold at very largely inflated prices, due to conditions which have no relation to the permanent value of the land. Therefore any land bought under those conditions must certainly involve loss to the purchasing authority. Under the Land Settlement Bill the Committee gave power to the parties to lease as well as to purchase land, and in that way sought to remove the handicap which the present abnormally inflated prices impose. The procedure under the Small Landholders Act is, as I am sure the Lord
Advocate will admit, the equivalent of leasing. The tenants in that case are under conditions of security of tenure which I submit are the equivalent of leasing. The compensation where the small holdings are constituted under that Act obviously cannot be greater, and should, on the other hand, really be less than when the land is bought. Therefore I submit this is a fair Amendment, because of the conditions of procedure set up under this Bi are applied to the operations of the Small Landholders Act we get rid at one stroke of the impossible conditions which now surround the acquiring of land for small holdings in Scotland, and we take up where we left off in Scotland before the Lindean decision of 1914. I think my proposal is not only practical but simple, and that it will achieve for Scotland that for which we might have to wait for a long time to secure by amending legislation to be brought in.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: I beg to second the Amendment.
I would press upon the Lord Advocate to accept this Amendment. As the Mover pointed out, the provisions for Compensation of Small Landholders Act have been responsible very largely for holding up almost entirely the provisions of that Act. The Lord Advocate may perhaps say that this Bill applies primarily to the acquisition of land by purchase, and that therefore it would not be possible for him to insert an Amendment of this kind. If he gives that reply, will the right hon. Gentleman further tell the House whether or not he considers this to be an Amendment based upon justice. When I say that, I mean does he propose in the Land Settlement Bill which is to be introduced shortly, as we hope, and in which no doubt certain areas of land will be acquired by purchase for the settlement of small holdings, that the land shall be acquired under this Bill, and that the provisions as to compensation of this Bill will be applicable to those cases, but that when land is acquired under the Small Landholders Act the large compensation which has been paid in the past should continue to be paid in future? I hope the Lord Advocate will be able to accept the Amendment, but if he is unable to do so I hope he will not be merely content to tell the House that he cannot accept it merely on the ground that it is not applicable to this Bill. I can assure the Lord Advocate that there will be many people throughout Scot-
land who will anxiously study the answer he gives on this Amendment. It is a very material point, and I hope he will be able to give us some satisfaction in the matter.

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Clyde): I am afraid that some misunderstanding underlies the Amendment. We cannot in a Bill which deals with the assessment of compensation for land acquired enter upon the general amendment of the provisions of the Act of 1911, and I would like to say this at once, with regard to the remarks of the last speaker, that it is no part of my intention to lift the smallest corner of the veil which at present conceals the precise contents of the Scottish Land Settlement Bill. Therefore, if he or anybody else is hopeful of getting from me at the Box tonight some information in advance of what that Bill contains—

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: That was not my object.

Mr. CLYDE: If that had been the hon. Member's object, I should have had to disappoint him completely. The purpose of Clause 9 is this, and this alone, and I am certain that so far as that object is concerned I shall have the approval and support of both the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment, namely, to apply to the arbitration procedure under the Act of 1911 the cheaper and the cheapening methods which this Bill provides in relation to an ordinary case of acquisition of land. In short, the purpose is to apply to those arbitrations precisely the same limits upon the possibilities of expense which this Bill applies to an arbitration to assess the value of land taken. The parties will be under all the limitations with regard to costs, limitations which in my humble opinion are worth all the rest of the Bill put together, but they will be under all those limitations as to costs just as in the case of an acquisition of land. They will be under all the limitations with regard to the employment of experts, and counsel, and so on, which apply to arbitrations in connection with the assessment of value of land taken. In short, in all these respects the Clause undoubtedly tends to restrict and is introduced for the purpose of restricting the expense so far as procedure goes. As I understand from the speech which the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment made—I would not have gathered it from the Amendment itself—his object is to try and go a good deal further than that. He wants to apply shortly all the
provisions of the Bill somehow to the problem which the arbiter has to solve under Sub-section (11) of Sections 7 of the Act of 1911, and of Section 17. I wonder if the hon. Member quite realised what a series of impassable barriers he has to cross before he could do that by any Amendment of the kind proposed. He will remember that the only provisions which are excluded from the proposed application to the purposes of the Act of 1911 are the provisions of the Sections of this Act relating to rules for the assessment of compensation. It is Section 2 (Rules for the Assessment of Compensation) and Section 2 alone which is not brought in so as to apply to proceedings under Sub-section (11) of Section 7 and Section 17 of the Act of 1911. The hon. Member might ask me, "Why don't you?" The answer is that there is not one of them that could be applied, and the broad reason of that is the one which occurred to the hon. Member for Kincardine (Lieut.-Colonel A. Murray), who seconded the Amendment, and that is that the purpose of this Bill is the assessment of value for land acquired, and that under the Act of 1911 no land at all is acquired, and the subjects of compensation are different in their nature altogether from the subjects which have to be dealt with when you buy a piece of land. Will the hon. Member look at Section 2 (1), and he will see what I mean.
(1) No allowance shall be made on account of the acquisition being compulsory.
There is no acquisition under the Act of 1911, and therefore there never was any question of a compulsory allowance. It will not fit, take it as we will. The hon. Member said the method of the Act of 1911 might be described as a compulsory lease. Yes, but not a compulsory lease which implies or involves the taking of anything compulsorily. All that happens is that you compulsorily force a landlord and a tenant into a contract in the terms of a statutory tenure. In the broad sense, it is true that it is a compulsory lease, but you do not take anything, and you do not pay anything in respect of what you take. On the contrary, under Sub-section (11) of Section 7 you pay if you diminish the letting value. You pay if there is general injury done to the value of the estate as a whole, but, again, there is nothing about compulsory allowance. I do not want to go into detail through each case, but the
reason why Section 2 is not brought in to be applied to arbitrations under the Act of 1911 is that there is no taking. Sub-section (2) of Section 2 is as follows:—
(2) The value of land shall, subject as hereinafter provided, be taken to be the amount which the land if sold in the open market by a willing seller might be expected to realise.
We do not buy any land in the 1911 Act, so that is no good. The section reads on:
(3) The special suitability or adaptability of the land for any purpose shall not be taken into account if that purpose is a purpose to which it could be applied only in pursuance of statutory powers, or for which there is no market apart from the special needs of a particular purchaser:
(4) Where the value of the land is increased by reason of the use thereof or of any premises thereon in a manner which, could be re strained by any Court, or is contrary to law, or is detrimental to the health of the inmates of the premises or to the- public health, the amount of that increase shall not be taken into account:
(5) Where land is, and but for the compulsory acquisition would continue to be, devoted to a purpose of such a nature that there is no general demand or market for land for that purpose, the compensation may, if the official valuer is satisfied that rein statement in some other place is bonâ fide intended, be assessed on the basis of the reasonable cost of equivalent reinstatement.
It is clearly impossible to apply either of those to anything under the 1911 Act. Let me remind the House, also, that the provisions of Section 17 have to do with compensation for cases in which there has been, material deterioration of the holding, during an occupancy which has expired. Again, we do not apply these things to it. Therefore, while it is impossible to use this Act as a means of recasting or reforming, the definition of the subjects of compensation in the Act of 1911, while the only thing is to make available the cheaper method of arbitration which this provides, which we have done to the full, we cannot, and with all respect the Amendment which the hon. Member has moved would fail in achieving the object he has in view, namely, of revising altogether the subjects to be defined as those for compensation in, the Act of 1911. It would merely apply to those same objects of compensation a series of provisions in Section 2 which would be incapable of receiving any application to them, and that is why the Bill takes the form which it does take and why it is quite impossible for me to accept this Amendment. On the other hand, I think I can say quite truly that to the full extent to which this Bill enables an arbitration
where compensation is involved to be cheaply carried out we shall, by the Clause as it stands, get the full benefit.

Colonel GREIG: I am one of those who have always taken the strongest view of the decisions under the old Landholders Act of 1911, namely, that those decisions did in effect, probably on the words of the Statute, give a construction which those of us who were supporters of the Bill never intended should be given. I agree entirely with what has been said by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge), that the effect of those decisions and the words of the Statute has been to hold up, subject to what the War has also done, the whole of the useful effect of that Act; but I have listened with great interest to what the Lord Advocate has said, and I must confess that I have been convinced by his reasoning. The Bill as we now have it will, I think, very much cheapen the procedure under the Landholders Act in Scotland, and that is an advantage which, I think, it is wise to adopt at once. With regard to the question of altering the basis of assessment and the standards of valuation for the creation of small holdings under that Act, having listened to what the Lord Advocate has said, I agree now that it would be far better not to attempt it here. I do not know myself what may be in the minds of the Government as regards future legislation, and if I did know I should not say anything at the present moment, of course; but I do not know, and I hope the strong views which are held by nearly every one of the Scottish Members on the expediency of altering those standards as they are now laid down will be brought home to the notice of the proper authorities, and that either in the next Bill or in some Bill to amend the Landholders Act those standards shall be adjusted equitably.

8.0 P.M.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I think my right hon. and learned Friend who is in charge of the Bill at the moment will admit that the discussion which has taken place has not been without use, and we are indebted to my hon. Friend and colleague for having moved this Amendment. We are also indebted to the Lord Advocate for the very clear, and, if I may say so, able statement he made on what is undoubtedly a complicated situation, and I am glad that two views of his have, I think, clearly emerged. First of all, he agrees with us that the
costs under the present system of arbitration in respect of the Small Holdings Act in Scotland require remedy, and he welcomes, as we do, such remedies as are found in this Bill. The second point—I hope I carry him all the way with me, although I approach this with a little less confidence—is this, that the present scale' of compensation which has been established by the decision of the Courts in. Scotland also requires amendment. I gathered that from him, and it therefore gives us a certain amount of hope, verging perhaps on confidence, that in that drama, of which he declines to-day to lift even any portion of the curtain, which will coins before the House under the title of a Land Settlement Bill for Scotland, we may see enacted there the death of the system which at present obtains in regard to compensation for land acquired for small holdings in Scotland, and the advent of a system which, while just to the claimant, will be fair to the public. I do not know what my hon. Friend will do with regard to this Amendment. But I think we will all agree that the discussion this afternoon has been a useful one.

Mr. HOGGE: I should be very glad to respond to the invitation to withdraw the Amendment, but the Lord Advocate will remember that ten weeks' ago I got the Second Reading of a Bill amending the Scottish Small Holders Act, and at his own request, and that of the Secretary for Scotland, I have not yet asked for that Bill to be sent upstairs, because my two right hon. Friends at that time told us the Scottish Land Settlement Bill would be introduced before Whitsuntide. We have had the Whitsuntide Recess, and we have been back a week, and there is no indication yet, apart altogether from the curtain being raised, as to when the Bill is to be put on the posters. We have not even seen any indication of it on the Order Paper, and; therefore, having made that sacrifice in keeping my own amending Bill back, I thought by moving this Amendment I might get some indication as to whether or not the method of compensation for the taking of land for small holdings in Soot-land was going to be radically dealt with. I hope, if my right hon. Friend cannot raise the curtain, he may at any rate tell us if there is any immediate chance of the Land Settlement Bill being introduced, because I have already waited ten weeks before asking for my Bill to be sent to the Standing Committee. I shall not be able to wait much longer unless my right hon.
Friend can tell us that his Bill is coming shortly. If he will say a word on that, I may be willing to withdraw.

Mr. CLYDE: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. I can certainly say the Bill is coming along, and is coming along shortly. I cannot go further than that, and I cannot, as I have said, indicate in any way what that Bill at present contains. My hon. Friend must exercise some little patience, and I think I can promise him it will not be lost.

Mr. HOGGE: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made:

In Sub-section (1, a), after the word "Bills" ["Lord Ordinary on the Bills"], insert the words
and the Lord Ordinary, except where the Lord Ordinary is therein last referred to.

In paragraph (b), after the word "means" ["means Court of Session"], insert the words
either Division of the."—[Mr. Clyde.]

Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — ELECTRICITY SUPPLY [MONEY].

Considered in Committee. [Progress, 4th June.]

[Sir EDWIN CORNWALL in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the Law with respect to the supply of electricity, it is expedient—

(a) to authorise the Treasury to advance out of the Consolidated Fund such sums not exceeding in the aggregate twenty million pounds as may be required in connection with the construction of interim works, and to borrow money by means of Exchequer bonds for the issue of such sums or the repayment thereof; the principal of and interest on such bonds to be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund;
(b) to authorise the Treasury to guarantee the interest on stock issued under the powers of such Act by the Electricity Com-missioners appointed there under up to an amount not exceeding twenty-five million pounds, and the charge on and payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any sums required for fulfilling such guarantee;
(c) to authorise the payment out of moneys to be provided by Parliament for five years after the passing of such Act by way of advance of any excess of the expenses of
460
the Electricity Commissioners over their receipts."—[Colonel Sir Hamar Green-wood.]

Amendment proposed: "To leave out the word 'twenty' and to insert instead thereof the word 'five.'"—[Colonel Gretton.]

Question again proposed, "That the word 'twenty' stand part of the question."

Mr. G. BALFOUR: I have studied the proposal which has been submitted by the Under-Secretary for the Home Department and the Amendment proposed by the hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton), and I think the proposal of the Government, even as proposed to be amended by the hon. and gallant Member, is quite unjustifiable. We have no evidence which entitles us to authorise that expenditure, and I think that we have been given a lesson and a warning against extravagance very recently; in fact, I think on the very day when this matter was last under Debate. On that same day the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave us all a warning against extravagance. He said:
On each occasion when expenditure comes before us we ask, not whether we like this, not whether it is a particular thing to be done if we were prosperous and the Exchequer overflowing, but is it a thing so urgently necessary that even in a situation as difficult as at present, and whilst we are as heavily burdened as we are we must nevertheless spend money upon it. If we deal with expenditure in that spirit, the danger which my hon. Friends fear will pass away, our stability will be increased, our debt will be gradually reduced, our trade will be encouraged, and our prosperity will return. But these results can only be obtained if throughout the whole field we exercise wise economy and put away the spendthrift habits which necessarily overtake us in time of war."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th June, 1919, col. 2162, Vol. 116.]
That is the advice given to us by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When the Under-Secretary for the Home Department advanced reasons for this expenditure on the last occasion, he referred to a Memorandum which was in print, but which was not available for the Members of the House. I have taken the opportunity of studying that Memorandum to see if it contains any information which would entitle us, as Members of this House, to support the Resolution submitted by the Government. I find nothing which tells us upon what this money is to be expended. It tells us, indeed, that in 1920 we shall expend, I think, £1,000,000 of the total of £20,000,000, and that in 1921 we shall expend £3,000,000, and so on, until the sum of £20,000,000 is spent; but I can find no word in this Memorandum
which states that this money is required for any specific purpose, unless, indeed, the Government hang on to one or two words where they refer to generating stations. They do not tell us where those generating stations are to be built, whether it is in the Upper Hebrides or in. the South of England. They do not say a word which justifies the building of any generating station. I can find no reference here to any part of the country where there is a great demand for electricity unfulfilled; in fact, I think it is true that, since the Armistice, all the available electric lighting plant in the country has a surplus ready and available for the purposes of manufactures.
I am not overstating my case when I say that; in this Memorandum, which is presented to hon. Members to encourage them to agree to an expenditure of £20,000,000 with subsequent expenditure, surely it is not too much to expect that we should have something which would entitle us to say that this money shall be authorised because we understand it is to be spent on objects which are really required in the public interest. I find absolutely nothing of the kind in this Memorandum. I have said that I feel that the amount even proposed by the hon. and gallant Member for Burton is too much, and I should like to propose an Amendment to that Amendment if it is in order. If I am not in order now in moving it, I should like to propose at a later stage to move an Amendment to this Amendment I should like your ruling on that point, Sir Edwin. The Amendment I propose is that the word "five" in the Amendment be omitted and the word "one" inserted.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall): The course the hon. Member should take is to vote against the word "five" and against the word "twenty," and in the event of the Committee agreeing with him it would be possible by a subsequent Amendment to move to insert the word "one." That would be in order.

Mr. BALFOUR: Then I will leave that to a subsequent stage. All I need say at the present moment is that, searching all the information which the Government have submitted to our consideration, up to the present moment I cannot find a single word which justifies the expenditure of a penny on the electricity supply of this country. I am driven to the one
conclusion that this is nothing more or less than part of the general scheme of nationalisation that is upsetting the country at the present time.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: This Resolution partakes of the nature of an insult Here we have the Government on the one hand preaching economy and appealing to the people to subscribe to the Victory Loan. The people outside are asked to be as economical as possible, and every individual person is to sacrifice their luxuries and pleasures—I quite agree with this—in order to support the Government Victory Loan; while on the other hand the Government themselves come down to the House day after day, with no idea of economy, and simply fling £20,000,000 about here and there as if the pocket of the public was absolutely inexhaustible. The Government cannot expect to get their Loan properly supported unless they themselves show some slight sense of economy. What is the Memorandum? It tells of a proposal to spend £20,000,000 for the construction of works in connection with electricity. What is the object of the Memorandum? That the House of Commons may know what they are going to do before they vote the money. It is not right that we should be asked to vote money blindfold to the Government. This is what the Memorandum says: This £20,000,000 is to be spent over the next five years, and this Estimate is based "on the known urgent requirements for new generating stations and plant and is spread over the time necessary to cover the constructional period." If the requirements are known, let the Government tell us what those requirements are. It is we who ought to be the judges, not Ministers. They say here in this Memorandum, which is signed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, that it is known what these urgent requirements are. My right hon. Friend near me has just told us. He is a great expert on electricity. He tells us that he does not know of any urgent requirements that require the establishment of new generating stations, and that at present the electrical requirements of the country are being amply met. It may be that the Home Secretary has better information. He says that he has. Let him tell us. Do not let him ask us to vote blindfold, or to give him a blank cheque for £20,000,000, because there is no particular reason for it so far as we
know. The curious thing is that when the Under-Secretary (Sir H. Greenwood) spoke on this matter on behalf of the Government on the 4th of June he seemed to have got quite a different view. In specifically answering a question he seemed to be woefully ignorant of this particular Memorandum, for he said:
There is in the Vote Office a detailed memorandum setting out the principal expenditure for the coming year and it has nothing to do with £45,000,000 or £25,000,000 or £20,000,000. It sets out very clearly that the probable expenditure for the financial year ending 1st of April, 1920, under the head of ' construction' will be £1,000,000, and that the expenditure for staff will probably not exceed £35,000."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th June, 1919, col. 2131, Vol. 116.]
This latter amount is a subsequent part of the Resolution, and will be subject to a different Amendment, and, therefore, I will not deal with it now. But doubtless this Memorandum, to which I have just referred, does go a good deal further than the £1,000,000 mentioned for the financial year. It does deal quite specifically and definitely with the Vote for £20,000,000. If my right hon. Friend is content to take his Vote for £1,000,000 for new construction for the year 1920, I, for one, will be perfectly willing to accept the Under-Secretary's figure, and let it pass. Let him—or whoever is to be the new Minister for Electricity—I do not know whether it is to be the overburdened Titan staggering under the burden of Ways and Communications, or whether it is to be the President of the Board of Trade, that equally capable brother who carries the burdens of office a little more lightly—but whoever it is let him make up his mind, after the first million is expended, and when he knows what the requirements are likely to be and let him come to the House of Commons and say, "We want so much money for such and such specific purpose or purposes," and I venture to say Sir Edwin, that if the money is really needed, that it will be a paying investment, that it will not be wasted or thrown into the gutter like a great deal of the expenditure of the Government—that this House of Commons will not object to the Vote. I ask the Committee, before passing this large Vote for £20,000,000, to insist that they should have more detailed information from the Government. Unless the Government can satisfy us that the money is really to be spent, I hope the Committee will limit the amount as suggested by my hon. Friend.

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: With regard to the observations from hon. Members who have already spoken, I would just say that it is not possible, in considering a great electrical scheme like the present, exactly to estimate the amount of money to be required in each particular year. Therefore the Government have done wisely, I think, in looking to the necessity of the whole in putting the matter before Parliament, at the same time telling us that this money will not be all expended in any one year, but must be spread over a number of years in the ordinary course of the requirements and development of the scheme. I should have thought that the hon. Member who last spoke, with his large experience, would have realised that this must be so, and especially so in connection with an electrical undertaking. These undertakings are of enormous size. There is the ordering of machinery, the devising of the plant, the construction of machinery, the erection of works, and so on, which means a very considerable period of time. It is, therefore, quite impossible for the Government, just as it is impossible for any private individual, to enter upon a scheme embracing a sum of £20,000,000, without knowing that Parliament or the Government is behind them, sanctioning the scheme as a whole. Therefore the Government have acted wisely in putting before the House the total estimate and at the same time telling the House that the expenditure will be spread over a number of years.
I should like to ask the Government one question about the £20,000,000. How far have they already gone in the initiation and the authorisation of the acquirement of new plant and new schemes? I do not know whether I am right or not in suggesting that a large scheme is in contemplation, if it is not already commenced—or perhaps to a certain extent completed—in the North Midlands. This scheme, I understand, has been contemplated in view of legislation possible—that is the legislation that is now before the House. In view of that a scheme has to some extent been sanctioned, as I understand, by the Ministry of Munitions. Some understanding probably exists that this is to be taken over as a whole by the Government.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: My hon. Friend will forgive me, but does he suggest that a national electrical undertaking in the North Midlands has been sanctioned without the authority of Parliament?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I am unable to answer the question of the hon. and learned Member, but I do know that there was a great need during the War for electrical power, and that all sorts of schemes had to be adopted in order to provide for oar national needs. It was pointed out by some undertakers in the North of England that they could not supply what was required unless they got Government assistance. Therefore they got, I believe, loans to enable them to put down these undertakings, with is some understanding probably—I do not know—that that would form part of the great national scheme when it is completed. So much for the £20,000,000 which is to be expended by the Government before the electrical commissioners and district boards can come into existence and take charge of the districts over which they will have charge. Really, this is a transitory provision intended to fill the gap until a time when the new construction, which, I hope, will be a national scheme, will cover the country and take charge of the chief industrial areas of our country. It is obvious to those who have read the Reports of the Committees which have inquired into this matter that it will be some considerable time before the district boards, if they are to cover the whole country, can come into being and acquire the existing generating stations and initiate and devise new stations. It would be a lamentable thing if we were to sit down with folded hands and say that we could do nothing. This £20,000,000 is intended to provide for the interval.
With regard to the subject generally, I think the matter has become one of increasing urgency, and this has been brought home to us not less than that it was some time ago by the condition of the supply of coal. It seems clear that the difficulty in that regard makes the matter more urgent, and anything that is likely to shorten the time when we can have a cheap electric supply for our industries is a matter which I think the House ought to support. There has been a great deal of talk as to whether we shall have a national system or some other, but the last two Committees, including the one which I have the honour to preside over—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman must remember that we are only now considering the Financial Resolution, and it is not in order to go into the merits of the question.

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The point before us is how this matter is to be financed, and
whether it is to be financed locally or nationally. The Government propose in this Resolution to have power to loan money to local authorities and also to district boards, and there is in the Memorandum conditions as to the terms on which the money may be lent, and it states, "Where it cannnot be raised otherwise on reasonable terms." The national aspect of it has been emphasised by the Committee over which I had the honour to preside, and a subsequent Committee which was appointed by the Government. Perhaps that aspect of the financial matter is a little overshadowed at present by other matters which have been considered in the direction of nationalisation. I want the Committee to remember that the question of the electric supply is entirely different from the position of industrial undertakings such as the coal mines and the nationalisation of coal. It is important to realise, in deciding whether we are to finance these matters by means of local undertakings, that the two things are entirely different. I ask those hon. Members who have not read it to read the Report of the Committee of the Chairman of the Ministry of Reconstruction upon the Report of the Committee over which I had the honour to preside. This subject has been reported upon so often That the House should be acquainted with the last Report to which they are to pay attention. In the Report of the Committee over which I presided we certainly thought national financing should be authorised. When you come to the authorising of this £25,000,000 you have to consider what they are going to do with it.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: This £25,000,000 comes under paragraph (b), and is not touched by the Amendment before the Committee about £20,000,000. I am quite prepared to let the Debate run on general lines if the Chairman is, but in that case we should have made general speeches. I think the question is whether £20,000,000 or £5,000,000 should be included.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is quite correct. The original Vote is £20,000,000 and the Amendment is £5,000,000.

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: It is my mistake, and, therefore, the remarks I was about to make about the £25,000,000 are out of order. I should like to say that all the evidence before the Committee over which I presided was in favour of this money being spent as far as it was required.
What we are doing is giving authority to the Government to spend what is required until such time as the new body can take over the undertakings.

Mr. SHORTT: I only wish to answer the question put by my hon. Friend. The Ministry of Munitions during the course of the War, did a considerable amount of work in this respect, but that has nothing whatever to do with the proposals in respect of which this money is being asked for. So far as these proposals are concerned, of course those connected with the Department are working out their plans and considering details, but there are no financial commitments of any sort or description being entered into by this Department.

Mr. T. THOMSON: We are asked by this Resolution to authorise the expenditure of £20,000,000, which, according to the Bill, may be used to acquire undertakings which are at present under popular control. As the Bill stands it is possible to hand over those undertakings to private companies to work for their own interest and profit. Since the Bill was introduced the Government have been approached by various authorities, and I hope they may be able to give some assurance that the very wide powers of the Bill taking over authorities at present democratically controlled and handing over their plant to private companies will not be pursued. If an assurance can be given that that which has been managed locally by popular elected bodies will be retained under popular control, then I think that would remove, so far as many of us are concerned, one of the chief objections to this Bill.
By Clause 7 you transfer various authorities concerned, and when you look at the amount of capital involved the great bulk of the electric supply of this country is in the hands of local authorities and managed by popularly elected bodies, and this money and these undertakings under this Bill are passed over to the district boards. Under Clause 16 the district boards having acquired this property can hand it over to be worked by private companies. I submit that the House should have some assurance from the Government, which is supposed to be democratic, that they are not going to use this £20,000,000 to take control out of the hands of popularly elected authorities, and place it in boards on which there may or
may not be a majority of popularly elected members. This is an important principle, and we have a right to ask what is being done to protect the public interest, and unless we have that assurance, I, for one, shall vote against a blank cheque being given to the Government to do what they like with under a Bill which provides no restrictions in regard to this vast transfer of public control to privately controlled interests.

Mr. NEAL: I listened with great interest to the speeches made by the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. G. Balfour), and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Joynson-Hicks), and they did not in the smallest degree conceal the fact that they were using this money resolution as another opportunity of showing their dislike to the whole subject matter of the Bill. The House on Second Reading, however, accepted the subject matter of the Bill. The point made by my hon. Friend who has just sat down (Mr. F. Thomson) is one of great interest that can be dealt with in Committee. We are here to endeavour to help the Government in immediate schemes of reconstruction, and an immediate scheme of reconstruction involves an immediate pledging of the national credit. Unless we are prepared reasonably and firmly to give our confidence to the Government, and we are here by the votes of the electors for the express purpose of giving the Government our confidence—my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham laughs at the idea of giving the Government his confidence—

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I was not returned by my Constituents to give the Government confidence to the extent of spending £20,000,000 on this measure. I was returned with regard to the War and the conclusion of Peace.

Mr. NEAL: And reconstruction.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: But not extravagance.

Mr. NEAL: There is nothing about extravagance in this Resolution or Amendment, and there was nothing in the observations of the hon. Gentleman germane to the question of extravagance. The question is whether we arc going to support the Government financially.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Blindly.

Mr. NEAL: My hon. Friend may use adjectives for himself; please let me use
my own. Are we going to support the Government financially? Without financial help it is hopeless to expect any reconstruction policy in this country, and that we need it every one of us knows. The White Paper that has been circulated gives us a prospective expenditure by the Government over a period of five years, and an expenditure of 1,000,000 in the first year. Supposing the Government had taken the line indicated by my hon. Friend and they had said "Give us permission to spend a million in the first financial year and then we will come next year and ask for more, but in the first year we shall have to pledge the credit of this country for £20,000,000," what would have been their observation? They would have said that it was fraudulent on the part of the Government to involve the country in an expenditure of not less than £20,000,000 under the pretence that they were only incurring an expenditure of £1,000,000 I thank the Government for having brought before the House a prospective outline of the capital expenditure which they think they are likely to ask us to vote for the next five years. There is one point on which I should like a little further enlightenment. The White Paper says that this £20,000,000 is by way of loan to the district electricity boards, and that ultimately it will not be a charge upon the State. Surely, whether any of it will become a charge upon public funds, depends upon what will be the financial success of the district electricity boards, and at this moment no one can guarantee them financial success. I can conceive circumstances under which it would be sound national policy to develop schemes which would not show a financial success though in the national balance-sheet they might well have that result.
Suppose the Government carry out the idea which was elaborated upon Second Reading and open up agricultural districts by taking cheap electricity to the farm and by establishing transport by electrical methods in rural districts so that the produce may be brought to the great centres of population for consumption. It may very well be that an undertaking like that cannot in the nature of things show a financial success as an isolated undertaking, but it may equally well be that it is essential to the prosperity of the country, and that in the end the gain nationally would be real. I do not see anything in the Bill which indicates the
financial backing of the district boards. Supposing a district electricity board shows a loss in the first year or the second year or any subsequent year—it is more likely in the early years than in the later years, and almost certainly it cannot be a commercial success in the early years during the development of the undertaking—upon whom is it the intention of the Government to place the financial responsibility? The district board, as the Bill stands, will be the creature of the Government. It will not necessarily have popular representation upon it, but, supposing effection be given to the desire of my hon. Friend who last spoke, and the district board became a popular representative body, at least as to the majority, it would be representative of the local authorities and not of the national authority. Is it intended then that the rates of the local authorities should be called in aid of the district board? Who is to make good any loss which there may be, and which I take it there must be in the initial stages of these great undertakings? I think it will be found that ultimately it must be a charge upon the Treasury, and to that extent the White Paper is not complete and accurate. But the loss upon the working of an undertaking year by year is not a capital charge in the true sense, and this is not a case in which extravagance is the appropriate-word under any circumstances whatever.
When a business man enlarges his business and puts in more capital he is not liable to the charge that he is extravagant unless he is careless in the expenditure of his money and not sufficiently careful to see that the money is expended in a way which will be productive of profit hereafter. The persons-who will have the spending of this money will be in the first place the Electricity Commission, acting through the district boards, and the time for a charge of extravagant expenditure will arise if and when it is found that their schemes are unsound commercially and that they are not buying their plant in the best markets and to the greatest advantage. Then it might be possible to make such a charge. But that will not be yet. You can only make the charge of extravagance against these boards if they do not properly place their contracts or properly supervise them. When you are talking about asking for money for capital purposes no one-dreams of saying it is extravagant to do
so. Would the hon. Gentleman in settling the prospectus of a company think it was a germane criticism to make when he was asking for extra capital that it was extravagant? If we are satisfied it is essential we should have cheap electricity through this land in order to assist commerce to bring schemes into effect which will find employment for the people, then in that ease I say the word "extravagant" is misapplied. We have either to trust the Government or to confess that we do not trust them. I am here believing that in these times it is our duty to drop all suspicion, that it is the duty of each one of us to help and not to hinder, and not to make this question of finance a stalking-horse to hamper the prosperity of the nation.

Mr. REMER: The hon. Member who last spoke seems to think it is the duty of every Coalition Member to support any measure the Government may bring in. Perhaps he will consult his Liberal colleagues and ask them whether they have been always quite so loyal in their attitude. I do not think we all necessarily agree as to what is the meaning of the words "policy of reconstruction." For myself, I do not think it is the duty of a Coalition Member of Parliament to -agree to any extravagant proposal of the Government—to any proposal of nationalisation of any kind, or to any proposal for State trading. Does the hon. Member suggest that all such proposals as these should be supported by us I So far as I am concerned personally, I, as a Coalition Member of Parliament, have stated deliberately that I am opposed to any kind of nationalisation. I should like to refer to a speech we heard just now, in which the hon. Member stated that the manufacturers might be careless in the way they spent their money. He does not seem to think that the State on several notable occasions has also been exceedingly careless of the way in which it has spent money, but one has only to refer to the Post Office telegraphs and telephones to become aware that State trading almost always is a failure. We were told just now that there were only two alternatives, and that was trade either by the State or by local authorities. I think there is a third alternative, and that is private enterprise. The strongest check should, of course, be put on the Government. They should be kept well
within their limits as far as their spending powers are concerned. I intend to support the Amendment.

Mr. WILSON-FOX: I entirely approve, as do all who have studied the question, in the development of electricity on a very large scale, a scale such as we have never seen before in this country, because it will result in our being able to produce far more cheaply than we have ever done in the past. But that is an entirely different thing to saying that we should give a blank cheque to the Government for the expenditure of these vast sums of money. My hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Neal) laid down an extraordinary doctrine as to the duty of Members of Parliament. If he had had the experience that I had in the last Parliament he could not possibly have given that advice. I am one of those Members who in the last Parliament was privileged to see almost every one of the white elephants of the War in their stable. I took part in the inquiry into the expenditure connected with Slough, Rich borough, Loch Doune, and Chepstow. I visited all those places, and nothing impressed me more than this, that no Government can be trusted to spend large sums of money safely except on proper estimates, so that the House may know exactly what is going to be done before it gives its sanction to the expenditure. For that reason, when the Government do not know what they are going to do with the money, I do not think the House is justified in saying that "you may spend money up to £20,000,000 on capital account." That is why I support the reduction which has been moved in the amount of money to be voted. My sole object in speaking in this Debate was to press that point. My hon. Friend said there could be no extravagance provided the money was spent on capital account. I do not agree with him.

Mr. NEAL: I do not think I said that. What I said was that extravagance comes from the scheme.

Mr. WILSON-FOX: I think if the House gives this wide authority without a knowledge of what the money is going to be spent upon it will be tempting the Government to extravagant expenditure, and you must not be surprised if such extravagance does occur. I do not think we are justified in putting the Government in that position. Every time that expenditure has been incurred, to a large extent, except upon proper estimates, extravagance and
waste have resulted, and it is entirely our own fault if we place the Government in a position to incur such extravagant expenditure. A man in business would not dream of incurring very large expenditure without having detailed estimates from competing engineers placed before him. He would not dream of saying, "You want to spend up to four or five millions; go ahead, and I will pay" He would say, rather, "Tell me what you want it for, what is the result you expect, and what it is going to cost," and when he has gone closely into all those things he may then sanction the expenditure, but not before. I maintain it is our duty to the country to keep at least as good a check upon the Government expenditure as the ordinary man of business applies to his concerns, whether he conducts them on his own behalf or on behalf of others, in the commercial world. For that reason I strongly support the Amendment.

Mr. GEORGE THORNE: The expression "extravagance" has been used very freely to-night, and strong urgency has been made on behalf of economy. Personally, I am strongly in favour of economy, but I am in favour of economy in some directions where some of my Friends who urge economy seem to be in favour of extravagance. I want to put every possible check upon waste and upon expenditure in the direction of destruction, but when we come to constructive matters I take an entirely different view, and I am under pledge, while I am opposed to waste and destruction, to support the Government so far as my judgment accords with them in their constructive proposals. What I am anxious to make sure of is this, and this only—that the Government, through their responsible Minister here to night, should make it clear to us that in this great proposal, which has received the support of the House on its Second Heading, they cannot carry it through in any practical way unless they get the authority for which they are asking now.

Mr. BALFOUR: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me what the proposal is?

Mr. THORNE: We have a responsible member of the Government here who will be able to answer what hon. Members are asking I do not want to put the slightest hindrance in the way of the Government carrying through these great constructive proposals. So far as I can, I want to help them in doing it. At the same time
we want to do it on practical lines. So far as it is practicable, I should like to have the estimates referred to by one hon. Member laid before the House. I want to be quite sure that, in asking for that, we are not preventing the Government doing what they desire to do, and what I for one desire to help them to do. What I invite the right hon. Gentleman to do when he replies is to make it absolutely clear to the Committee that the Government cannot get on with their proposals unless we assent now to the particular thing for which they are asking. I do not like giving up the control of this House in regard to this large expenditure of money. Therefore, the responsibility must be upon the Government of stating, through their representative, that they cannot do what the House desires them to do unless they have this money. Upon them is the responsibility of saying they cannot carry through this constructive proposal without the Resolution for which they are asking.

Mr. BIGLAND: I desire to ask one question before the Government reply. I am informed, if this large sum of money is granted to the Government to produce electricity, that in the rural districts, the supply of electricity being small, the cost: per unit would be so great that we taxpayers will be asked to pay a considerable sum, because the price charged to the small consumer in the rural districts, will be totally inadequate to pay the actual cost of production. I should like to ask whether it is suggested by the Government that any portion of this £20,000,000 or any deficit or loss will be charged to the taxpayers through the Exchequer?

9.0 P.M.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood): May I respectfully ask the Committee to remember that, these sums of money were incorporated and are incorporated in the Bill which: has already passed the House without a Division on its Second Reading? Therefore the principle of giving the Government control of these sums of. money has already been accepted by the House. This Financial Resolution is a Resolution according to our constitution to empower the Government to expend it as they can only expend it—that is, under the Bill as it is amended in Committee. By the Rules of the House we cannot deal with the
Financial Clauses of the Bill in Committee, which means, in fact, that the Bill cannot go to Committee for consideration at all until we get this Financial Resolution. The principle of the Bill and this expenditure have been agreed to. Let me say here that the first paragraph of the Resolution, to which the Amendment of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) refers, says that the Treasury shall have power
to advance out of the Consolidated Fund such sums not exceeding in the aggregate twenty million pounds.
That is a capital expenditure. Every shilling of that capital expenditure, every shilling of that money advanced by the Treasury in any shape or form, is to be repaid by these district boards. May I remind the Committee that this proposal, as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. G. Thorne) has emphasised, is a constructive proposal? We are taking over going concerns that are already paying revenues. We are not taking over derelict concerns.

Mr. BIGLAND: Are you going to start new ones?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Certainly. Under the Bill to which the House has agreed we have power to undertake vast undertakings, but with the object of centralising the production of electricity.

Mr. BIGLAND: There is no revenue from those new ones.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Undoubtedly there will be revenues from them.

Mr. BIGLAND: There is no assured revenue.

Sir G. GREENWOOD: It is impossible to prophesy what will happen in the future, but we have every reason to believe, on the best advice we can get, that they will be reproductive. May I remind my hon. Friend that the great object of the Bill is to so centralise the production of electricity that we can cheapen its supply to the individual or individuals, including those in rural areas, if it is at all possible and is not prohibitive as to its cost.

Mr. BIGLAND: If there is a loss, what will happen?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I do not think it is possible to have a loss, taking the whole.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: What about Chepstow?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I do not think it is possible to have a loss, and only those suggest a loss who are opposed to the principle of the Bill altogether. The experts who have advised us in reference to this matter assure me, and I repeat the assurance having studied the question, that we are taking over going concerns, and by the system we are adopting under the Bill we hope to cheapen electricity. We certainly do think that the centralisation of this great source of energy means not greater but less cost. We ask the Committee to give us power to make a capital expenditure over a period of five years of £20,000,000. The White Paper, which I trust that every Member has read, sets out how the expenditure is estimated.

Mr. BALFOUR: It does not say how it is estimated, but only the period of its expenditure.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: That is so, only the period. The hon. Member will have an opportunity, when we get to the Committee stage of the Bill, of himself insisting on his views being put in an Amendment, if that is necessary.

Mr. BALFOUR: It is equally so with £5,000,000 as with £20,000,000.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Not so. I will tell the Committee why we ask for the £20,000,000 under the Resolution which the House has granted in principle in passing the Second Reading. If you are going to have a great scheme of electrical supply covering the whole of the country you cannot restrict your planning for that supply to one year. Therefore we plan for a period of five years.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: What are the plans?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am sorry I cannot give particulars and details at the moment, but nothing I can say will persuade some hon. Members. At any rate, the principle is agreed to, and you cannot restrict your planning for a vast scheme of this kind to one year. We choose a five-year period, and we ask the Committee to pass this Resolution estimating the expenditure for each year of that five-year period. The hon. Member (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) has talked about flinging millions about. I am sorry to think anyone should
talk in that way in dealing with a Bill of this kind, which gives power to advance money to take over going concerns.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: This £20,000,000 is not to take over going concerns, but to build new works.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: It is £20,000,000;for the transition period. Every penny of it is returnable and will be repaid. Why talk about extravagance when you are making an advance the certainty of the return of which with interest is assured? There can be no extravagance in that kind of capital expenditure unless the suggestion is that it is going to be lost absolutely as soon as it is advanced. I protest against the suggestion that the Government is pledged to a policy of flinging millions about. I think the Government is showing a desire to bring forward a policy of construction and remuneration which I hope will characterise every Bill that is introduced by any Government. To accept the Amendment means that you defeat the purpose of the Bill. You cannot carry out a vast scheme—and it is a vast scheme—under the Electrical Bill if you restrict your financial engagements to £5,000,000. The House has made up its mind by giving the Bill a Second Reading. I hope the Committee will give the Government this power to spend £20,000,000 not in one year, but over a period of five years, and without that power neither this nor any other Government can plan a great and comprehensive scheme which will make the production of electricity what we want it to be and cheapen it to industrial and private consumers. I hope the Committee will remember, in going to a Division, that the fate of the Bill itself depends upon accepting the amount set out in these financial Resolutions.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The passing of the Second Reading simply means that the House approves the general principle of the Bill. It is then not only the privilege, but the absolute duty of the Committee to discuss the financial details. That is why we have this Committee stage. If the mere passing of the Second Reading is sufficient to give the Government authority to spend all the money it likes, why go through the form of Committee at all? The wisdom of our predecessors has provided this Committee stage in order that we should do our duty toy looking after the financial aspect of
the particular Clauses, which naturally could not be discussed in detail on the Second Reading. It is our duty to ask the Government what they propose to do with this £20,000,000. The method of moving to reduce the amount is in order to find out what they are going to do with it, and that is the object of the Amendment. The hon. Gentleman has not given us one word of information as to what the Government is going to do with it. He told us in a burst of eloquence that he was going to take over going concerns. He is not going to take over going concerns with this £20,000,000. I interrupted him and he fled from the point at. once. The £20,000,000 is for new construction. He says his experts tell him this new construction is going to bring in profits to the Government. What a wonderful company promoter he would make! How he would go down with the public. "Trust me. I have experts behind me. Give me £20,000,000. We shall make a glorious profit, and you will get good dividends. But I will not tell you how I am going to spend the £20,000,000." I wonder what money he would get out of the public with a prospectus of that kind. We are in this respect the public, but we are not merely the public who put our own money into the venture: we are responsible for the money of the taxpayers. We put other people's money into it, and it is more necessary that we should protect the interest of the taxpayers. If he is not going to give us any more information than that, he is asking us for the blankest of blank cheques. If he will tell us what his plans are, we will consider them. He then said that my hon. Friend (Mr. Balfour) could worry this out in Committee upstairs. That is not the proper place to deal with financial Resolutions. This is the proper place in which you ought to lay your plans before the Committee and ask the Committee for power to carry out these schemes. I said we will give him his million even without the plans before us. The hon. Member for Yorkshire thinks it is necessary that we should vote £20,000,000 merely because the Coalition Government asks for it. Would he have voted £50,000,000, would he have voted £100,000,000, in the same trusting spirit, merely because a Member of the Coalition Government asked for it? That is not my idea of the duty of a Member of the House of Commons, and as long as I am
a Member of the House of Commons I shall exercise my rights in Committee of Ways and Means to find out whether Government proposals, from the financial point of view, are sound or not. The hon. Gentleman has given us no information at all on the point, and under the circumstances I shall certainly press this to a Division.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: This is a case where we have something constructive. Yesterday, or the day before, £185,000,000 were voted for munitions, which will never bring in any money. There is a chance of bringing something back here, and I think a very good chance.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: How do you know?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I say I think there is a chance. Later tonight we shall be asked to vote £50,000,000 for munitions of war. We are certain never to get anything back from that, and we may do a great deal of damage with that money. Here is a chance of making something. I mean to support this, and I hope all who have the interests of the country, from a constructive point of view, at heart will also support it.

Question put, "That the word 'twenty' stand part of the Question."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 136; Noes, 26.

Division No. 47.]
AYES.
[9.15 p.m.


Ainsworth, Capt. C.
Gardiner, J. (Perth)
Perring, William George


Baird, John Lawrence
Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Basingstoke)
Pratt, John William


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Prescott, Major W. H.


Barnett, Captain Richard W.
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Purchase, H. G.


Barnston, Major Harry
Green, J. F. (Leicester)
Rae, H. Norman


Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Greenwood, Col. Sir Hamar
Raper, A, Baldwin


Bellairs, Com. Carlyon W.
Griggs, Sir Peter
Ratcliffe, Henry Butler


Birchall, Major J. D.
Hailwood, A.
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.


Blades, Sir George R.
Hambro, Angus Valdemar
Richardson, R. (Houghton)


Blane, T. A.
Hancock, John George
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Boles, Lieut.-Col. D. F.
Hayward, Major Evan
Robinson, T. (Stretford, Lancs.)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Henderson, Major V. L.
Roundell, Lieutenant-Colonel R. F.


Bowles, Col. H. F.
Hoare, Lt.-Col, Sir Samuel J. G.
Samuels, Rt. Hon. A. W. (Dublin Univ.)


Breese, Major C. E.
Hood, Joseph
Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)


Briant, F.
Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Bridgeman, William Clive
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W.)


Brittain, Sir Harry E.
Hume-Williams, Sir Wm. Ellis
Simm, Col. M. T.


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Jephcott, A. R.
Smith, Capt. A. (Nelson and Colne)


Bromfield, W.
Jesson, C.
Smith, Harold (Warrington)


Buchanan, Lieut.-Col. A. L. H.
Jodrell, N. P.
Sprot, Col. Sir Alexander


Burn, Colonel C. R. (Torquay)
Johnson, L. S.
Stanley, Colonel Hon. G. F. (Preston)


Cairns, John
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Steel, Major S. Strang


Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)
Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.


Carter, R. A. D. (Manchester)
Kellaway, Frederick George
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Casey, T. W.
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander
Sturrock, J. Leng-


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Kenyon, Barnet
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Coats, Sir Stuart
King, Com. Douglas
Taylor, J. (Dumbarton)


Cohen, Major J. B. B.
Lewis, T. A. (Pontypridd, Glam.)
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Coote, Colin R. (Isle of Ely)
Lyle, C. E. Leonard (Stratford)
Thomas, Sir R. (Wrexham, Denb.)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Univ.)
M'Curdy, Charles Albert
Thomas-Stanford. Charles


Davidson, Major-Gen. Sir John H.
M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)
Thorns, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)
Macquisten, F. A.
Vickers, D.


Davies, Sir D. S. (Denbigh)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Walker, Col. William Hall


Davies, Sir Joseph (Crewe)
Malone, Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.)
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Davies. T. (Cirencester)
Malone, Major P. (Tottenham, S.)
Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)


Dawes, J. A.
Mason, Robert
Wardle, George J.


Dewhurst, Lieut.-Com. H.
Mitchell, William Lane-
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Dockrell, Sir M.
Moore, Maj.-Gen. Sir Newton J.
White, Charles F. (Derby, W.)


Edge, Captain William
Mosley, Oswald
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Murray, Major C. D. (Edinburgh, S.)
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald


Elliot, Capt. W. E. (Lanark)
Murray, William (Dumfries)
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Neal, Arthur
Wilson. Col- Leslie (Reading)


Eyres-Monsell, Commander
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)
Worsfold, T. Cato


Falcon, Captain M.
Oman, C. W. C.



Fell, Sir Arthur
Parker, James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Capt.


Foxcroft, Captain C.
Parry, Major Thomas Henry
Guest and Colonel Sanders.


Galbraith, Samuel




NOES.


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.
Clough, R.
Gretton, Col. John


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Bennett, T. J.
Courthope Major George Loyd
Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley)


Bigland, Alfred
Craig, Capt. C. (Antrim)
Hurst, Major G. B.


Campbell, J. G. D.
Davision, Sir W. H (Kensington)
Joynson-Hicks, William


Lonsdale, James R.
Raeburn, Sir William
Wilson-Fox, Henry


Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)
Samuel, A. M. (Farnham, Surrey)



Marriott, John Arthur R.
Stevens, Marshall
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.


Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Remer and Mr. G. Balfour.


Nall, Major Joseph
Waddington, R.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, in paragraph (b), to leave out the word "twenty-five," and to insert instead thereof the word "five."
I move this Amendment, although it is clear that there are only twenty-six economists in the House, and a large number of followers of my hon. Friend (Mr. Neal) who apparently vote for the Government because it is the Coalition Government. This part of the Resolution authorises the Treasury to guarantee the interest on stock issued by the Electricity Commissioners up to £25,000,000. Can the Under-Secretary give us any information about the issue of this £25,000,000 of stock which the Government is going to guarantee? On the White Paper I find about as much information as we have already had. The first statement of the Government is that it is impossible to say in what cases, if any, it wll be necessary to call on this guarantee. The whole scheme is based on the anticipation that the scheme will be self supporting, and will not involve the Treasury in any payment, and on this statement the House of Commons is asked to guarantee £25,000,000. My hon. Friend is an excellent company promoter, but I do not know what his opinion would be of a banker who asked someone to sign a guarantee for £25,000,000 and said, "Of course, I do not expect that you will ever be called upon to pay anything on that guarantee." Most people would hesitate to sign such a guarantee on that statement. This is not a proper way of doing business. The Government must tell us what they are going to do. Having made my protest I do not know that there is any use going on dividing the House on Amendment after Amendment. But unless the House of Commons is going to abrogate its functions as a custodian of the finances of the country, it will insist upon the Government giving further information as to their proposals.

Sir F. BANBURY: I am surprised that the Government have not considered it advisable to give a reply to the speech of my hon. Friend. I wish to draw attention to what appears to be a very extraordinary provision on the White Paper. In Clause 23 the Treasury are enabled to guarantee the interest on such terms as they think fit on stock not exceeding
£25,000,000, to be issued by the Electricity Commisioners for the purpose of loans to district electricity boards, or authorised undertakings, where it appears that the money necessary for the undertaking can not be otherwise raised on reasonable terms. Undertakings which are perfectly sound will have the power of going into the open market and asking the investing public to lend them money. But now the Government say that where the undertaking is so bad and the prospects are so poor that no reasonable person will lend it any money, then the unfortunate taxpayer is to come forward and authorise the interest on a sum not exceeding £25,000,000. That is the meaning of those words, and that is why the Government have not thought fit to reply to the speech of my hon. Friend We have already authorised an advance out of the Consolidated Fund of a sum not exceeding £20,000,000. Surely that is enough to go on with, at any rate for a time. Why on earth at the present moment, when we ought to be economising in every possible direction, having given that power to the Government, are we to give the Government the additional power to guarantee interest on £25,000,000 for certain undertakings, where it is evident that no sane person will lend the money on those undertakings? I earnestly hope that the Committee will pause 'before encouraging such a wanton, wasteful proceeding. We do not know at all that these undertakings are going to be successful. In the ordinary course of events, people would consider whether the undertakings were going to be successful before they lent their money. We do not know whether they are or not. We do know that where the Government have interfered "With and attempted to manage commercial undertakings they have made an egregious mess of it, not only wasting money but carrying on the undertakings badly. The Committee may remember that it is their duty to support the Government, but they should also remember that an even more important thing is to save the taxpayer from burdens additional to those which are already very heavy. In those circumstances, I implore the Committee to pause before giving the Government power to advance money to
undertakings to which nobody else in the country will advance any money. My hon. Friend has said that he would not think of dividing the Committee, but unless we get a reasonable answer it is our bounden duty to divide the Committee. Otherwise it is very difficult for Members who are new to the House to find out that they will never receive proper consideration from the Government unless they are prepared to divide the House or the Committee when they are not treated properly, and my hon. Friend has not been treated properly because his speech has received no answer.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am sure that the Committee will acquit me of any intentional disrespect in not rising at once to reply to the hon. Member (Mr. Joynson-Hicks). I only wish that it were within my power to make a reply on this or any other main policy of the Government that would convert the hon. Member and the right hon. Member (Sir F. Banbury) to that wholehearted support of the Government which he now extends to the opposition of it. I quite appreciate the importance of what he says to this extent, that it is the duty of every Member of Parliament to deal not only drastically but, if necessary, harshly with the Government on financial and other questions. I spent years of my own life in trying to carry out that policy, and I agree that the Government, if not harshly criticised and fearlessly criticised, is apt, perhaps, to get too great a conceit of itself and not have that healthy regard for His Majesty's faithful Commons as I certainly have and always will have. May I ask the Committee to allow me to read to them Clause 33 of the Bill, Sub-section (1). which gives in greater detail the power of the Electricity Commissioners to lend money to district boards? In the paragraph in the Financial Resolution the Committee realise that we arc asking for power for the Treasury to guarantee, if necessary, interest on a maximum amount of £25,000,000.

Sir F. BANBURY: When nobody else will do it.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: That is not what it says. The guarantee may not be called for, but if at a given time a district board has a great undertaking for which it wants money, I submit that it would be real economy to have the Treasury guarantee interest, to get the money at 5 per
cent. rather than that the district board, knowing the bad state of the market, should be compelled to borrow at 7 percent.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Because of bad securities.

Sir F. BANBURY: I am not quite certain, but I believe it was the Duke of Wellington who was responsible for the expression "high interest and bad security."

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am afraid the authority for high interest goes much further back that the Duke of Wellington I will read Clause 33:
The Electricity Commissioners may lend, on such, terms and conditions as, subject to the approval of the Treasury, they think fit to a District Electricity Board or any authorised undertakers, any money, not exceeding in the aggregate £25,000,000, which the Board or undertakers are authorised to borrow, if the Commissioners are satisfied that the Hoard or undertakers cannot otherwise raise the money on reasonable terms.
The necessity for the guarantee only arises when the market is so bad or the lenders are so unreasonable, or when for any other reason the yare called upon to pay high interest. I submit that for all these reasons it may be the beet economy to guarantee the interest on a given loan in order to expedite the development of this scheme of electrical power. If you adopt the principle of this Bill, and want to help to make it a success, this guarantee of interest is an important factor. The cheaper you can get the money it ought to follow the cheaper the electricity supply. I admit that I cannot tell the Committee how this £25,000,000 will be spent. I do not think it is possible to tell; I do not think the Committee will expect me to tell them. It will be used to carry out the Bill as ultimately it finds its way on the Statute Book. I have done my best to-make clear the Government view on this question, and I would like to conclude by expressing the hope that no Member of the House would suggest that I was discourteous in not making the explanation before.

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I think the Under-Secretary for the Home Department made a slip when he said that this money would be spent only by district boards. It may be spent by other authorised undertakers. With regard to the purpose for which the money is required, the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) spoke of this money as if it were an addition to the
£20,000,000, and for the same purpose. I would point out that this money is only in part required and used for the same purpose as the £20,000,000.

Sir F. BANBURY: I did not mean to say it would be used for the same purpose, in addition to the £20,000,000.

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I am sorry if I misunderstood the right hon. Baronet. The main purpose of this £25,000,000 is to pay for the existing generating stations and main transmission lines which will be taken over presumably by the district boards. Where a district board is created generating stations must be taken over by the board, and necessarily the board must pay for them. In order to do that they have to get money, and they must either raise it, under the proposals of the Bill, locally, or borrow it from the Treasury. For my own part, and I believe a good many people agree with my view, I think it will be very much better if the whole of the finance were done on one uniform basis. Personally I do not think the Government are wise in this option matter. It is true that this option was in the Report of the Committee over which I presided, but the options were put in as 1, 2, and 3, and No. I was that the whole scheme should be nationally financed. I think that is a very much wiser plan. Some of the £25,000,000 may be used also for now works, because when these boards are established they acquire existing generating stations, and a simultaneous duty will be to consider what new works are required They require money in order to construct those new works. I think it is a great pity that it is not one national system of loans—£25,000,000 will not cover it. In order to acquire all the generating stations and to provide what new generating stations are required, we shall see in course of time a larger figure. There is another point which is perhaps interesting, and that is that this £25,000,000 is a sum which will be spread over a considerable period. The generating stations cannot be taken over all at once; it will be a matter of considerable time. Therefore the £25,000,000, if wanted at all, will be wanted only over a number of years.
I hope that the whole of the financing will be done through the one system, and that we shall not have this competition of the different district boards in the market for money, offering different rates according to the goodness or badness or supposed goodness or badness of the under-
takings. It would be very much better to have one uniform system of finance. Something has been said as to money being necessarily provided to meet losses. I do not disguise from the Committee, and I should be wrong if I did so, having spent ten months in inquiring into this matter, that there will undoubtedly be losses in taking over obsolete plant and also probably in the great new stations which are to be created, because if you do business properly you must anticipate the demand which does not exist in full measure to-day. When putting up stations you cannot possibly expect that they will pay for a number of years until the demand around them has grown to a certain volume. Therefore the Government will be wise if in considering these financial proposals now and in the future they take into account, and it is only good business to do so, that it is absolutely essential, if they are to supply a proper system of cheap electric power, to look ahead. It has been said that this will prove to be a sound investment, but that is only true if you take the long view. You must be prepared to experience losses for some time, and then, if you have taken the long view, you will reap a great reward from this new cheap power to be provided in all the industrial districts and perhaps in the agricultural districts as well.

Mr. WILSON-FOX: The speech which has just been delivered throws a flood of light and far more than any information from the Government upon the financial situation in which we are about to be placed. We have been asking for facts. The right hon. Baronet (Sir A. Williamson) has, I know, given very close consideration to this question from a business point of view, the remark he has just made makes me more convinced than I was of the necessity of asking the Government to make clear to us their plan in this matter before they expect us to vote these very large sums of money. The House will recollect that the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill held out the prospect that at least no money was going to be lost in taking over what we were led to believe—I am sure quite genuinely—were paying existing stations, or, at any rate, that it was good business to take them over. I have had very considerable acquaintance with this style of undertaking, as I was concerned with arrangements in connection with one of the largest power com-
panies of the world, which began by taking over a number of small stations in order gradually to replace them by a large generating station. I can tell the Committee that most of those small stations will have to be scrapped, because in small units it is quite impossible to produce electricity as cheaply as it will be produced in this country in the future. I do think we ought to know what the Government propose to do in these matters before we commit ourselves to this expenditure of two large amounts which are to be used, if not entirely for the same purpose, at any rate more or less to cover the same ground, as it does not seem easy to differentiate accurately between those uses. If it is to be carried out in a cheap way, I believe that on purely financial grounds this will have to be financed as one big concern.
We are entitled to ask for information before we vote these large sums of money, and I am not at present convinced that we ought to authorise this expenditure, and I am all the less convinced by the arguments of the Under-Secretary, because, as the right hon. Baronet who has just spoken pointed out, if this is going to be a real scheme it is not going to be a matter of £20,000,000 or £45,000,000, but the whole scheme is going to cost several hundreds of millions. Therefore the Government will have to come to the House again for money, and, that being the case, I see no reason why we should commence by voting these large sums without estimates, and then as they proceed they can prepare further estimates, and ask us to authorise expenditure on the basis of those detailed, or more or less detailed, estimates, instead of coming to us in a very unbusinesslike way and asking us to give them a blank cheque. That is my attitude in connection with all these Financial Resolutions. I would remind the Undersecretary that he has told us the House is entitled to information and yet the Minister-designate of Ways and Communications, who will, I understand, be the Minister who will have the running of this great undertaking when it is in being, absolutely refused on the Ways and Communitions Money Resolution to accept an Amendment which asked that estimates of capital expenditure should be laid before the House before they asked us to authorise that expenditure. On those grounds I do press for a recon-
sideration of this matter. I do not think the Government should treat the House in what appears to be a rather contemptuous attitude and spirit, contemptuous I may say of our intelligence and knowledge of business matters. I hope that the House, which is waking up to the necessity for economy and of enforcing economy on the Government, will take the only action which can force that very necessary fact on the Government.

Sir F. BANBURY: I did not rise when my hon. Friend opposite sat down because I thought the Government would have something to say. If the Under-Secretary will allow me I should like to congratulate him upon his very brilliant statement and the courteous way in which he put the matter to the House. As far as I am concerned, I would be the last person to charge him with any deliberate want of courtesy to the House. I think he made an extremely good defence of an extremely bad case. The right hon. Baronet (Sir A. Williamson) cast a very illuminating light upon what is really in-intended under this Resolution. He told us that a lot more than £25,000,000 would be wanted. What is more, he said that a good deal of it is going to be lost because many of these undertakings on which we are going to guarantee the interest will not pay. That may have been intended as a speech in support of the Government, but I should have thought that to the ordinary observer it would have appeared to be a speech in support of those of us who are asking that at any rate we should hesitate before we advance this money. The right hon. Baronet is a very distinguished member of a very great firm in the City, and I do not think that the firm of which he is an ornament would be in the position which they now occupy if they had been in the habit of advancing money to undertakings which they were aware were going to result in a loss before they lent the money. I happen to occupy a humble position in the City, and I venture to think that if I had gone to the right hon. Baronet and asked him to lend me some money and confided to him that the undertaking for which I required it was going to result in a loss, I do not think I should have left his office with the money in my pocket.

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I did not say that these undertakings would result in a loss. I said, on the contrary, that you
must take a long view and that in the long run it is a good investment, but that there will be a certain amount of inferior plant to be taken over which will produce dearly, and you must therefore go on improving it. There will be some plant which is not good, but you must take a broad view. There is another loss which occurs in the new plant put up before it has reached its full consumptive power, and it is wise to take that into account. But I did not say that it is a bad investment. On the contrary, I think it is a good investment, taking a long view of it. But in the first years possibly there will be some losses, which will have to be spread over the subsequent years.

10.0 P.M.

Sir F. BANBURY: I did not intend to misrepresent the right hon. Baronet and do not think that I did so. He says that in the long run there is going to be a profit, but in the meantime there is going to be a loss, and it depends how long the run is going to be. I remember a great many people in the City who took that view and bought more stock than they could pay for under the idea that in the long run it was coming right. But the runs were so long that they could not find the money to pay for the stock they had bought, and they had to sell the stock at such a loss that many of them became bankrupt. In the years to come, perhaps, these things may turn out to be a success, but in the meantime let me point out to the House that we are committing ourselves indefinitely to an enormous expenditure. Every day we are asked to spend or to guarantee money for some object or other. I say that that is all wrong, and that what we ought to do is to proceed cautiously, and, having already for a certain purpose advanced £20,000,000 to the Government. I think they ought to be content with being allowed to guarantee £5,000,000 for these new undertakings. We are told it must take time before these things develop, and that more money will be required. Under these circumstances, why cannot the Government be content to take a moderate sum now, with the understanding that if the project turns out to be more or less successful, or if the run does not appear to be so very long, they will then come down to the House and say, "You see what excellent men of business we are, how well we have been able to manage these undertakings, and how rosy their future prospects are, and therefore, under
these circumstances, will you allow us to spend another £20,000,000?" That, I venture to say, would be a businesslike method, and I hope the Committee will show the Government that they are really desirous of beginning to economise. If they are not prepared to show the Government that they mean business, it is no use talking about economy. If you permit the Government to go on spending these vast sums, you will find when it is too late that you ought to have stopped them before it had gone so far.

Sir W. DAVISON: I would desire that the Committee, before it votes this sum of money to the Government, should bear in mind that we are in the midst of a great Victory Loan campaign throughout the country, and those of us who are concerned with urging the people of the country to invest in this loan, to buy Victory Bonds, or to purchase War Savings Certificates, are again and again held up by the remark, "What is the good of us putting £100 or £1,000 into this loan when night after night and day after day the House of Commons is voting millions without any Estimates being put before them as to what those millions are going to be spent upon?" That is a point which we are up against everywhere, and I think it is more than ever necessary in these times that the Government should be punctilious in giving the fullest possible information as to the purposes for which these millions, of which we are all too short, are to be spent. We all remember that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has on more than one occasion told the House that the House of Commons itself is the greatest sinner in matters of extravagance, but it seems to me as a new Member that whenever the House of Commons has endeavoured to pull itself together and to sift proposals for the expenditure of money it has been held up by the Government saying that the money was required for certain vague purposes, but not giving them the details which would enable the House of Commons to come to a conclusion as to whether or not the money was required. I hope the House will remember this before voting these large sums of money without securing particulars of the purposes for which they are going to be expended.

Mr. R. McLAREN: It seems to me that, having passed the Second Reading of this Bill, and this Clause having been enumerated in the Bill, there is nothing left to the House but to assent to the prin-
ciple laid down. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] All along I have felt that the Government and the House in particular are expecting far too much from this great scheme which is about to be put on the country, and I was glad to hear the right hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Sir A. Williamson) express his view, because, after all, he has a great deal of knowledge on the subject, having been chairman of the Committee. I agree with him in thinking that at the outset there must be a loss in connection with this scheme. When we consider that in the country there are a large number of generating stations which have been going on for years, the plant must nearly be obsolete, and the moment the Government take over the undertakings new plant will be required. Those of us who have some Knowledge of this subject, also know that to make electricity pay you must have very large plant, and it is perfectly evident to any practical man that during the initial stage there must be a loss, and that loss will go on for some years. At the same time, it is perfectly true that, after a number of years, the thing will begin to pay, but whether or not it will pay to the satisfaction of the Government I am not so certain. I am not so sanguine as some hon. Members as to the great economies that will be effected by electricity. There is other power equally as cheap. Take, for instance, gas in large towns, where you can have a very much cheaper power than by electricity. It is evident you cannot take gas into the rural districts, and electricity must be brought in there. I think, however, the Government has scarcely been frank with the Committee to-day, because those in charge of the Bill ought

to have told us what the right hon. Member for Moray and Nairn told us, namely, that there would be a loss. It was perfectly well known to them at the outset that there would be a loss; and why were they not frank enough to tell the Committee so? The Committee is wise, before sanctioning a vast sum of money, to ask the Government to give more details. While I am not prepared to vote against the Government, I have a great deal of sympathy with the Mover of the Amendment that £5,000,000 should be the sum in the meantime. Being a new Member of the House, I was very much interested to hear old Members tell us that this House should always keep a firm grip on finance. I find that, old and new Members alike, when voting money everyone goes with the Government.

Sir F. BANBURY: Oh, no; you follow me!

Mr. MCLAREN: I have no doubt that if I always followed the right hon. Baronet I should find myself amongst very distinguished company, but it would not always be wise to follow him in connection with some subjects. At the same time, as a new Member, if the Government are not following the principles enunciated at the Election, I shall take an independent attitude, and the time, I am afraid, is not far distant when some of us who were expected to give strong support to the Government will be compelled, unless the Government deal fairer by the House, to record a vote against them.

Question put, ''That the word 'twenty-five' stand part of the Question."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 125; Noes, 32.

Division No. 48.]
AYES.
[10.10 p.m.


Baird, John Lawrence
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Univ.)
Hancock, John George


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Davidson, Major-Gen, Sir John H.
Hayward, Major Evan


Barnett, Captain Richard W.
Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)
Henderson, Major V. L.


Barnston, Major Harry
Davies, T. (Cirencester)
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Bellairs, Com. Carlyon W.
Dawes, J, A
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Sir Samuel J. G.


Birchall, Major J. D.
Dewhurst, Lieut.-Com. H.
Hood, Joseph


Blades, Sir George R.
Dockrell, Sir M.
Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)


Blane, T. A.
Edge, Captain William
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Boles, Lieut-Col. D. F.
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Hughes, Spencer Leigh


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Elliot, Capt. W. E. (Lanark)
Hume-Williams, Sir Wm. Ellis


Breese, Major C. E.
Entwistle, Major C. F.
Jephcott, A. R.


Bridgeman, William Clive
Eyres-Monsell, Commander
Jodrell, N. P.


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Falcon, Captain M.
Johnson, L. S.


Bromfield, W.
Fell, Sir Arthur
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)


Buchanan, Lieut.-Col. A. L. H.
Foxcroft, Captain C.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)


Buckley, Lieutenant-Colonel A.
Galbraith, Samuel
Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)


Cairns, John
Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Basingstoke)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander


Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Kenyon, Barnet


Casey, T. W.
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
King, Com. Douglas


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Green, J. F. (Leicester)
Lewis, T. A. (Pontypridd, Glam.)


Coats, Sir Stuart
Greenwood, Col. Sir Hamar
Loseby, Captain C. E.


Coote, Colin R. (Isle of Ely)
Hailwood, A.
Lyle, C. E. Leonard (Stratford)


M'Curdy, Charles Albert
Raper, A. Baldwin
Thomas-Stanford, Charles


M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Malone, Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.)
Richardson, R. (Houghton)
Townley, Maximillian G.


Malone, Major P. (Tottenham, S.)
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Tryon, Major George Clement


Mason, Robert
Roundell, Lieutenant-Colonel R. P.
Vickers, D.


Mitchell, William Lane-
Samuels, Rt. Hon. A. W. (Dublin Univ.)
Walker, Col. William Hall


Moore, Maj.-Gen. Sir Newton J.
Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)
Ward, Colonel L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Mosley, Oswald
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)


Murchison, C. K.
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W.)
Wardle, George J.


Murray, Major C. D. (Edinburgh, S.)
Simm, Col. M. T.
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles)
Smith, Capt. A. (Nelson and Colne)
White, Charles F. (Derby, W.)


Murray, William (Dumfries)
Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Neal, Arthur
Sprot, Col. Sir Alexander
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)
Stanley, Colonel Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.


Parker, James
Steel, Major S. Strang
Wilson. Col. Leslie (Reading)


Parry, Major Thomas Henry
Stephenson, Col. H. K.
Woods, Sir Robert


Pratt, John William
Strauss, Edward Anthony
Worsfold, T. Cato


Prescott, Major W. H.
Sturrock, J. Leng-



Pulley, Charles Thornton
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Capt.


Purchase, H. G.
Taylor, J. (Dumbarton)
F. Guest and Colonel Sanders.


Rae, H. Norman
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)



NOES.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington)
Oman, C. W. C.


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Gretton, Col. John
Raeburn, Sir William


Bennett, T. J.
Gretten, W. G. Howard
Reid, D. D.


Brittain, Sir Harry E.
Hall, Capt. D. B. (Isle of Wight)
Remer, J. B.


Burn, Colonel C. R. (Torquay)
Hambro, Angus Valdemar
Samuel, A. M. (Farnham, Surrey)


Burn, T. H. (Belfast)
Hurst, Major G. B.
Stevens, Marshall


Campbell, J. G. D.
Law, A. J. (Rochdale)
Wallace, J.


Cough, R.
Lonsdale, James R.
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Colvin, Brigadier-General R. B.
Marriott, John Arthur R.



Conway, Sir W. Martin
Meysey-Thompson, Lt.-Col. E. C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir F.


Courthope, Major George Loyd
Moles, Thomas
Banbury and Mr. Wilson-Fox.


Craig, Capt. C. (Antrim)
Nall, Major Joseph



Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn"—[Mr. Pratt]—put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES, IRELAND [EXPENSE].

Considered in Committee.

[Sir EDWIN CORNWALL in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the enactments relating to the Housing of the Working Classes and the Acquisition of Small Dwellings in Ireland, it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of expenses incurred by any Government Department—

(a) when acting in the place of local authorities in preparing and carrying out schemes under such Act;
(b) in recouping losses incurred by local authorities; and
(c) in contributing to costs incurred by public utility societies and housing trusts and other persons."—[Mr. A. W. Samuels.]

Sir F. BANBURY: No doubt this is a most interesting Resolution, and it seems to me that the less hon. Members know about these proposals the more they vote blindly for them. The Attorney-General had a good intention in his mind, because I saw him rise with the idea of explaining the Motion, and then after you, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, had put the Question
the good intention of the Attorney-General seemed to evaporate and he trusted to the old tradition that if he said nothing no one would got up and interfere, and the Resolution would be carried. That, however, is not always so. There are sometimes certain persons who desire to know what they are doing. Many hon. Members come in and vote blindly in whichever Lobby the Government may happen to be I hope we shall not be put to the necessity of voting against the Government, which is very painful to us, and I trust my right hon. and learned Friend will give us some reason on this occasion why we should support the Government.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. A. W. Samuels): May I explain that there has been published a White Paper which sets out fully the financial provisions with regard to the Irish Housing Bill?

Sir F. BANBURY: We prefer to have an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. SAMUELS: The explanation is that there is a certain difference in regard to the financial assistance to be given by the Government in the case of Ireland to that of Scotland and England. In England a penny rate is supposed to be struck by all the municipal or local authorities, and the Government come to the rescue by contributing the difference between the
economic rent and the rent at which the new houses can possibly be expected to be let having regard to the very abnormal conditions existing. In Ireland there are two factors which have to be taken into account which do not render that system applicable, and we have to see what will encourage local authorities to build to meet the appalling conditions of housing, and what will secure the State from extravagance on their part. The valuation in England varies from year to year, and a penny rate, therefore, bears a certain relation to the existing value. The system of valuation in Ireland is altogether different. It was struck in a great many instances as far back as 1852 by Statute, and it has not been varied except in the case of new buildings. The result is that you have not the same solid basis on which to work. In the second place, in a large number of cases where the conditions are worst and where it is most necessary to build, you would not get any substantial contribution from the community by a penny rate, and practically the whole of the cost would fall upon the State. Under these circumstances, it is rather a difficult problem to meet. It has been arranged that the Government shall come to the rescue by contributing £1 for every £1 of rent charged and collected.

Sir F. BANBURY: That is 100 percent.

Mr. SAMUELS: No, up to a maximum of £1 to cover the loss. If the community builds houses to be rented at something like 7s. 6d. per week when the actual economical rent would be 15s., then the Government, supposing 7s. 6d. is collected, meets the other 7s. 6d. to make up the difference.

Sir F. BANBURY: That is 100 percent.

Mr. SAMUELS: Not necessarily. If they do not collect the rent they lose not only their own rent but also the Government subsidy. If they do not pay the rent the loss falls on the rates. They have in fact to pay the money out of their own pocket in the shape of rates. It will be for the Local Government Board to see that the rents are charged and properly collected, and if that is done I do not think that there will be a larger burden on the Exchequer in the case of Ireland than it is expected there will be in the case of England. The general effect of the scheme is fully explained in the White Paper. If we take it that the houses to
be built will cost £500 each, and if we build ten thousand houses in the first year, the State will have to provide something like £50,000.

Mr. MARRIOTT: What is to be the cost?

Mr. SAMUELS: If the houses cost about £500, £5,000,000 will have to be set aside in the first year. If they cost £600 the amount will be £6,000,000, and if they cost £700, £7,000,000 will have to be raised probably. But the loss to the State will only be up to a maximum of £1 of rent charged.

Sir F. BANBURY: I am very much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his explanation. But he has not told us what the actual amount will be. I think he said that in all probability in the first year it will be £50,000 and that it might be more in following years. In the old days when Resolutions of this nature were brought forward I always suggested a limiting Amendment so that we should not give a blank cheque to the Government, but should know to what we are committing ourselves when we sanction the expenditure. I do not propose to move a limiting Amendment on this occasion because I think the gentlemen from Ireland will do it for me. I am not referring to hon. Members, but to their constituents—the patriots. The hon. and learned Gentleman has told us that if they do not pay the rent there will be no liability to the State, and I think it is a thousand to one chance that they will not pay the rent, and consequently there will be no liability to the Slate. Under these circumstances I have no objection to the Resolution.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill before we vote this money or commit ourselves to this expenditure what is the future of Ireland going to be?

Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMS: May I ask a financial question? Who is going to fix the rents? How is it going to be done? It seems to me almost possible that rents might be fixed at a very low figure so as to impose a greater charge upon the State.

Colonel GRETTON: I have been examining this White Paper, and the statement it contains of the expenditure contemplated is extraordinarily loose and vague. On page 3 it says:
The capital expenditure on, say, 50,000 houses may be estimated as follows: If the houses are to be erected at a capital cost of £500 per house, £25,000,000; if at £600 per house, £30,000,000; and if at £700 per house, £35,000,000.
That is a very pleasant and easy exercise in arithmetic, but it is hardly a serious statement on behalf of the Government of what they really intend to authorise in the way of expenditure in connection with housing in Ireland. I submit that the Government ought to tell us whether they intend to put up 50,000, 100,000, or 25,000 houses, and whether they seriously estimate the expenditure to be £500, £600, or £700 per house. Then the Committee would have some reasonable estimate of the expenditure they are to authorise. When the Government come down with a Paper which was issued as long ago as 16th May, and apparently has never received any further attention or correction and ask the Committee to authorise expenditure of millions of money on a schoolboy exercise in arithmetic, without-submitting any serious estimate, the Committee ought to ask for further information. I ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Resolution whether he can answer two simple questions: What number of houses the Government intend to authorise under this Bill, and what is the serious estimate which they submit to the Committee as the proper capital expenditure per house they intend to erect? This Resolution has been treated to-night in a most casual and haphazard manner. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman treated the Committee in a serious spirit in the statement which he made. In these days the country outside and certainly the House are not-prepared to authorise the unlimited expenditure of millions unless they know there is a serious policy behind the proposals put forward by the Government, and that a serious estimate has been made of the expenditure which the House is asked to sanction. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to answer these inquiries.

Mr. MOLES: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, perhaps he will consider another point which will help to elucidate some of the mystery which appears to surround the Bill. He told the Committee that it was the intention to provide pound for pound of the rent collected. Have the Government contemplated that from
time to time numbers of these houses will be vacant. There may, in fact, be quite a number—a floating number—of houses vacant. Consequently, if the local authority is only to receive pound for pound in respect of rent collected, obviously there will be considerable sums not returnable as rent at all from unoccupied houses. The local authority will therefore, as I apprehend it, lose at once the rent and the corresponding sum that it would have received from the Government if the house had been occupied. How is it proposed to meet that loss?

Sir M. DOCKRELL: The Government has an object-lesson in the Land Purchase Act, the sums payable under which have been honourably paid. This is a very much smaller sum than is involved in land purchase, and I for one have no doubt that the sums which would be provided by the House will be forthcoming from Ireland in payment of interest on these loans, and it is perfectly plain that if no rent is recovered there will be no demand upon this House. If, on the other hand, rent is recovered, the House will be asked simply to supplement the rent pound for pound. I do not wish to have my country lie under the imputation of being a country which will repudiate its debts.

Sir F. BANBURY: The White Paper to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred is really an extraordinary document. It begins:
The capital expenditure involved will depend (a) upon the number of houses to be built; (b) upon the date at which they are built; and (c) upon the type of houses and the accommodation provided.
It was hardly necessary to issue a White Paper to inform the House of those facts, and as we hope to be in a somewhat economical mood might I suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman that it would save paper and printing if the White Paper was confined to facts which the House of Commons does not know instead of telling us facts which any board school child would know of his own knowledge? The Paper goes on:
The net annual expenditure will depend not only upon the amount of the capital expenditure and the rate of interest payable thereon, but also upon the rents charged for the new houses, the rates and the cost of insurance.
That, again, is an extraordinary amount of information imparted gratuitously, except for the cost of printing and paper, to an ignorant House of Commons. I do not think it shows that the Government have any very high opinion of the intelligence
of Members of this House if it is necessary to issue a White Paper containing those two paragraphs. Then it says:
The financial assistance to be granted from public funds for housing schemes will take the form of a subsidy, the amount of which Parliament will be asked to vote annually
I think we know that also. It goes on to say:
The actual expenditure on 50,000 houses may be estimated as follows
In the old days we always looked to the Treasury and the various Departments to give a fairly accurate estimate of what the expenditure might be, and if the estimate was given for a million and the expenditure was really £1,300,000 there were a great number of Members who would get up and say that that was not an accurate estimate. The first thing that the Government should be taught was to give accurate estimates. Here we have an estimate by the hon. and learned Gentleman. It varies from £25,000,000 to £35,000,000, which is a pretty vague and wide estimate. If you were going to employ a builder and he said that the cost would be something between £25,000,000 and £35,000,000, you would hesitate before you employed him and you would go to someone who could give you a little more accurate information. There are three columns set out very nicely, showing the capital expenditure for 1919–20 on 50,000 houses. The first column says that if the capital cost per house is £500, the total cost will be £5,000,000. If the capital cost per house is £600, the total cost will be £6,000,000; and if the capital cost per house is £700 the total cost will be £7,000,000. Then we come to 1920–21. In the first column it states that if the capital cost per house is £500, the cost up to 1921 will be £10,000,000; if the capital cost per house is £600, £12,000,000; and if the capital cost per house is £700, £14,000,000. These figures are repeated for 1921–22. This is all very simple, if all these millions were going to be picked out of the air and nobody was responsible for them, but my experience, after twenty-seven years in this House, is that the eventual cost falls upon the English taxpayer.

Sir M. DOCKRELL: Has the Land Purchase fallen upon the English taxpayer?

Sir F. BANBURY: That is the exception. There have been so many Acts dealing with Ireland that it is impossible to
remember all of them, and I committed the error of saying that the Land Purchase Act was not borne in Ireland.

Sir M. DOCKRELL: In the main.

Sir F. BANBURY: In the main! Yes, but there is a good deal in the main, and in the long run. The White Paper then goes on to give the total expenditure under the three heads as £25,000,000, £30,000,000, and £35,000,000. Then we are told that the capital sums advanced by the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland will be ultimately repaid either by way of annuity or by half-yearly instalments of principal, with interest on outstanding balances. I do not know in what other way it would be repaid. This Estimate seems to me to be so extremely vague that I think we ought to put a limit upon the Resolution. Since reading the White Paper, I beg to move, to insert at the end of the Resolution, the words
but such sum shall not exceed the sum of £10,000,000.
I think that is a very generous amount to give to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He only wants £7,000,000 in 1919–20, even supposing the houses cost£700 each, and if we give him £10,000,000 that will be a considerable amount to go on with.

Lieut.-Colonel MEYSEY-THOMPSON: I rise to second the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet. We are asked to vote an indefinite sum varying to such an extent that I think we ought for the first year to limit the expenditure to £10,000,000, and after that we can see how it works out. We ought not to permit the control of expenditure to pass out of the hands of the House of Commons in the way in which it has been doing during the last few years. During the War, no doubt, it was necessary to allow the Government great latitude with regard to expenditure, but now that we are getting back to peace we ought to resume our control.

An HON. MEMBER: dissented.

Lieut.-Colonel MEYSEY-THOMPSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the Government ought to have uncontrolled expenditure? H that is to be done, why not have a Committee to decide what the expenditure of the country is to be, and give them full responsibility for the expenditure, and not as at present, when they take powers to spend anything they like and throw the responsibility on to
the House of Commons? Let us either have a Committee that will spend whatever money they like on whatever subject they like and accept the responsibility, or let us have the House of Commons responsible, as they always were, for the expenditure of this country, and let them have control over the ways in which the money is spent. The proposal of the right hon. Baronet is absolutely sound. The sum which he suggests is amply sufficient for the purposes for which we are asked to expend our money. If the Motion comes to a Division any honest Member of this House who values the power of the House of Commons over expenditure will go into the Lobby with the right hon. Baronet and myself.

Captain CRAIG: I trust that the right hon. Baronet will not press this Amendment for this reason, if for no other, that in the corresponding Bill dealing with housing of the working classes in England no limit has been imposed on the amount to be spent The right hon. Baronet will say it is never too late to mend, but in a very small matter like the providing of a few houses for a few poor Irishmen it is hardly worth while beginning to mend these. It has been estimated, I believe with approximate accuracy, that it will be necessary to build something like 70,000 houses to meet the wants of the working classes in Ireland. Putting the cost of a House at the lowest price contemplated, namely, £500—I am sure that the great mind of the right hon. Baronet could not possibly contemplate building a house for less than £500; he could not do it under present circumstances—if you take £500 as a reasonable price, you provide only 20,000 houses for the sum named in the Amendment. I suggest that it would be a most unfair and very calamitous tiling if this House seriously tied the Irish Government down to that sum and defeated the end which I think the whole House has in view, namely, to meet this great crisis which exists now in the matter of housing all over the Kingdom. I base my hope that the House will pay scant attention to the Amendment on the fact that you have imposed no such limitation on the cost of housing that you are going to apply to your own people in England and Scotland, and, therefore, it would be grossly unfair to apply any such limitation to Ireland.

Mr. SAMUELS: May I ask hon. Members to allow this to pass. It would be
impossible to frame this in more particular terms. It would be a most disastrous thing if we were to lose this Bill for Ireland. I am sure the right hon. Baronet himself would be the last willingly to increase the very serious difficulty that exists.

Mr. MARRIOTT: We have listened to a very moving appeal from the Attorney-General for Ireland. What the Amendment does is to give power to the Government to spend £3,000,000 more than they are asking for for the first year. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The terms of the right hon. Baronet's Amendment are to give the Government at once power, as I understand it, of spending£10,000,000. What is the estimate they put before us in this White Paper? They ask for 1919–20 £5,000,000 on one assumption, £6,000,000 on another assumption and £7,000,000 on the third assumption. What does the right hon. Baronet propose He proposes to give £10,000,000. They can come next year and get another £10,000,000. We are not denying in the least this money to Ireland. We are only asking that the House of Commons shall retain its control over expenditure. We do not desire to deny the housing scheme to Ireland that has been already voted to England. If he has erred at all, the right hon. Baronet has erred on the side of generosity in giving the Government £3,000,000 more than they asked for. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide!"] I have not addressed the Committee on this subject before—

It being Eleven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — CHECKWEIGHING IN VARIOUS INDUSTRIES BILL.

Not amended (in the Standing Committee); Considered, read the third time, and passed.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Adjourned accordingly at Two minutes after Eleven o'clock.